Re: [boost] Monad (was: Re: [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO)

Subject: Re: [boost] Monad (was: Re: [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO)
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-27 08:05:14

Niall Douglas wrote:
> The idea is that no one ever need implement the Concurrency TS 
> themselves ever again. Just pick up a copy of Boost.Monad/Outcome. 
> Write your policy class for your custom variant. Profit. 

Is anyone besides Boost or standard library vendors actually interested in
doing this? Standard library implementors are not going to take a dependency
on a Boost library.

For example: Are there many (or any) Filesystem TS implementations that
people care about outside of standard library implementations and Boost? 

I just can't imagine someone, say, proposing Boost.Path that provides a 
boost::basic_path that can be used to implement
std::experimental::filesystem::path and expecting anyone to care about it.
Anyone implementing the TS will just implement
std::experimental::filesystem::path themselves and not take a dependency on
boost::basic_path to do it.

What makes your basic_future so different to the hypothetical basic_path?

Glen

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/afio-Formal-review-of-Boost-AFIO-tp4679110p4679337.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.