Subject: Re: [boost] new library boost.fiber in vault
From: Edd Dawson (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-21 09:39:46
Oliver Kowalke wrote:
> Boost.Fiber is modeled after the interface of Boost.Thread and this API
> is at least for me more convenient than co-routines
> (that means I'm more familiar with the usage of threads) and Boost.Fiber
> was written for support of Boost.Task (non-blocking
> tasks inside the thread-pool).
> I don't think that the libs should be merged.
Code that uses fibers can be somewhat gnarly by necessity, especially when
exception handling and multiple platforms are thrown in to the mix.
For example, I found that MinGW GCC's older SJLJ mechanism is particularly
I suspect you're far more qualified to work around that than I, if you haven't
Anyway, should boost really have two lots of code for this stuff? In other
words, would it not be beneficial if one library was written in terms of the other?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk