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
> 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.
-- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk