Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-29 01:30:56

On 08/24/2015 10:21 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> On 8/24/15 9:59 AM, Sam Kellett wrote:
>> so taking
>> the word monad and the namespace boost::monad seems to be a bit scary
>> when
>> in the future they could be used for a totally generic full fat haskell
>> type monad in c++ as you say.
>

<snip>

> I raised a few concerns about the "monad" "library" when it was first
> discussed on the list and never really bought into it as a boost library
> (as constituted) and don't think it should be included now.  Though I'm
> skeptical of Niall's monad, I've got not complaint if Nail want's to
> make boost::afio::monad and later try to get it "promoted" to
> boost::monad.  Doing this would demote Niall's monad to the status of
> implementation detail or private API and hence wouldn't irrevocably
> occupy any coveted territory.  It would also make the review of AFIO
> much easier and more likely to pass.  It would also be an easy change
> for Niall to (promise to) make.
>

Hi Niall -

There have been several suggestions (implicit and explicit) to move this 
type into the boost::afio namespace, but I haven' seen a response from 
you. Have I just missed it?

I'm afraid that AFIO isn't able to be reviewed because there are so many 
questions about other someday-to-be libraries in the boost namespace.

What are your thoughts?
Thanks -
michael

-- 
Michael Caisse
ciere consulting
ciere.com