Re: [boost] Final opinion on Re: Boost.Fiber review January 6-15

Subject: Re: [boost] Final opinion on Re: Boost.Fiber review January 6-15
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-12 11:38:56

On 11 Jan 2014 at 10:21, Nat Goodspeed wrote:

> > * C++11 support needs improving. Others have mentioned more on this
> > than I.
> 
> For my purposes in collating results, though, I'd ask you for a bit
> more detail here.

Sorry, that was sloppy wording on my part. I meant to say something 
more like this:

* Direct support for C++11 needs improving.

And by that I mean three main items:

(i) Improved conformance with C++11 idioms.

(ii) Improved conformance with C++11 std::thread patterns.

(iii) Explicit #ifdef support with code for C++11 features. I didn't 
look closely enough to see if these are already in there, but by this 
I would mean move construction, initialiser lists, rvalue this 
overloads, deleting operators where appropriate etc - the usual 
stuff.

> As far as I can tell, you might be alluding to
> 'explicit operator bool' rather than the C++03 'operator safe_bool'
> trick. If the review might end up requesting more work from Oliver,
> it's only fair to be as specific as we can about what work is
> required. Otherwise it's sort of a "too many notes" level of critique
> -- not really actionable.

I understand entirely. I didn't go into detail because I didn't think 
I could improve on what others have said, and I don't have the time 
to contribute much more detail (I have maths coursework due next 
week). Hopefully the above clarifies my position.

Niall

-- 
Currently unemployed and looking for work.
Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/