Subject: Re: [boost] [fiber] ready for next review
From: AgustÃn K-ballo BergÃ© (kaballo86_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-05 09:15:35
On 12/4/2015 11:48 AM, AgustÃn K-ballo BergÃ© wrote:
> On 12/4/2015 4:47 AM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
>> 2015-12-03 22:21 GMT+01:00 AgustÃn K-ballo BergÃ© <kaballo86_at_[hidden]>:
>>> Yes, in the documentation.
>> documentation might need some updates - my announcement was primarly
>> focused to the source code
> Fair enough, I was misguided by the "ready for next review" subject as
> well as the announcement that requests from the review have been
> addressed. This is obviously not the case, but we can still make a lot
> of progress based on source code adjustments only.
The value of `future_status` enumerators is shifted when compared to the
corresponding `std::` definition. This could lead to subtle mistakes for
people familiarized with the standard definition. I would suggest to
simply follow the normative definition from the standard here.
-- AgustÃn K-ballo BergÃ©.- http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk