Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber mini-review May 23 - June 1
From: Bjorn Reese (breese_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-28 13:14:07
On 05/23/2016 06:20 PM, Nat Goodspeed wrote:
> Please do remember to state in your review whether you think the
> library should be accepted as a Boost library.
Yes, I vote for unconditional acceptance of Boost.Fiber.
I did not participate in the formal review (due to time constraints),
so I am not going to address the individual issues.
I happened to have studied Boost.Fiber recently because I came across
limitations of the inter-coroutine interaction in Boost.Coroutine, and
Boost.Fiber addresses these limitations rather nicely. I especially
like the message passing channels, which makes Boost.Fiber an obvious
choice for building a coroutine-based actor framework.
The only finding I have is that several Boost.Fiber headers include
detail headers from Boost.Context. While this is not a problem per se
(because Oliver is the maintainer of both libraries), it may be an
idea to consider if these detail headers should be made public.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk