Subject: Re: [boost] [phoenix] request for a mini-review. (Re: Phoenix as a Boost library)
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-16 19:41:25
Le 16/10/2010 14:34, Thomas Heller a écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Eric Niebler<eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2010 4:41 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>> Anyway, having said that, just keep in mind that people have been
>>> clamoring for phoenix and I'd prefer something done sooner rather
>>> than later. We can tweak the library later as long as the main interface
>>> (not the extension interface) is stable. And it has remained more
>>> or less stable for a long time now. IMO, it should be a priority to
>>> focus on the remaining incompatibilities before anything else.
>> Hmm, good point.
> Definitely a good point. Though, most of the stuff that doesn't work
> just yet was very difficult with the current intermediate form. That
> is why I started the discussion about that new design. So, even if the
> top level API is fixed (it was fixed already before, no real breakage
> between V2 and V3)
I thought V2 doesn't follow the result_of protocol, and didn't do
perfect forwarding either.
Those are the reasons I'm not using it and waiting for V3.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk