Re: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?

Subject: Re: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?
From: Anthony Williams (anthony.ajw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-13 16:03:54

Tom Brinkman <reportbase_at_[hidden]> writes:

>>> One last sentence, we should not forget that the interface of the future
>>> library has already gone through the standard committe.
>
> Why does Anthony not just slip "futures" it into boost::threads.  He maintains
> that library.  Its a non-issue.  He doesn't need our approval to do that.

I did not do this precisely because Braddock submitted his library for
review before mine was ready. If my implementation of futures had been
the only one, I would have just added it as an extension of the thread
library. Because Braddock had submitted an alternate implementation with
a distinct interface it seemed presumptious of me to add it to
Boost.Thread. I also hoped it would be reviewed before WG21 got to vote
on the proposals, so the review could provide feedback to the committee.

> Considering the way this review has floundered at this point, that is
> the best outcome that I can see.

I am happy to do this if that's what people want.

Anthony
-- 
Author of C++ Concurrency in Action | http://www.manning.com/williams
just::thread C++0x thread library   | http://www.stdthread.co.uk
Just Software Solutions Ltd         | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL, UK. Company No. 5478976