Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re: [rfc] rcpp)
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-26 14:36:16
On 02/26/2010 12:06 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> On 02/24/2010 02:15 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>> It's perfectly OK to move those 3 libraries to the 'detail' namespace
>>> of Boost.Task and
>>> have review as it is, as opposed to waiting. What do you think?
>> Please, don't go that way. At least Boost.Atomic is a widely demanded
>> addition to Boost, and if it goes as some closed implementation detail
>> for an other library, it would be a great shame for users (it would
>> surely be for me).
> As pointed out by Daniel down the thread, this is only good point if you
> expect somebody to help with Boost.Atomic. If there's nobody willing to
> help, then you either get it inside Boost as implementation detail, or you
> bot don't get it inside Boost and block some other potentially useful
I thought the authors of the dependent libraries would be the first
interested in Boost.Atomic acceptance. However, I see that the work on
it is ongoing, so it doesn't matter.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk