Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] Do we can a non backward compatible version with non-blocking futures?
From: Bjorn Reese (breese_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-21 09:06:49

Next message: Niall Douglas: "Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries"
Previous message: Damien Buhl: "Re: [boost] [Better Enums] Interest in/feedback on C++11 enums library"
In reply to: Vicente J. Botet Escriba: "[boost] [thread] Do we can a non backward compatible version with non-blocking futures?"
Next in thread: Lee Clagett: "Re: [boost] [thread] Do we can a non backward compatible version with non-blocking futures?"
Reply: Lee Clagett: "Re: [boost] [thread] Do we can a non backward compatible version with non-blocking futures?"
Reply: Vicente J. Botet Escriba: "Re: [boost] [thread] Do we can a non backward compatible version with non-blocking futures?"

On 05/19/2015 01:58 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

> My question is if the Boost community will accept (or even wants) a
> breaking change on a near release (when I would reach to fix the
> executors issues) including non-blocking futures instead of the current
> blocking futures.

It is unclear to me exactly what the breaking changes are. Are they
limited to .then()?

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk