Re: [boost] [phoenix] request for a mini-review. (Re: Phoenix as a Boost library)

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.