Re: boost.spawn: review requested

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-11-30 20:06:50

On 11/30/21 22:26, Oliver Kowalke via Boost wrote:
> Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]> schrieb am Di., 30. Nov. 2021,
> 20:21:
> 
>> pon., 29 lis 2021 o 21:39 Oliver Kowalke via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> napisał(a):
>>
>>> Am Mo., 29. Nov. 2021 um 21:30 Uhr schrieb Niall Douglas via Boost <
>>> boost_at_[hidden]>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As an alternative, how about announcing the complete removal of
>>>> Boost.Coroutine with two major release notice (including this release)?
>>>> That should spur Boost.ASIO being upgraded to Boost.Coroutine2.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That had already happen some years ago - including warnings during
>>> compilations - but didn't help. Ask Vini...
>>> At the end I was forced to remove the compiler (preprocessor) warnings.
>>>
>>
>> Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Boost.ASIO
>> works under C++03, and so does Boost.Coroutine. Whereas Boost.Coroutine2
>> requires C++11. If Boost.ASIO were to switch from BoostCoroutine to
>> Boost.Coroutine2, it would break its C++03 guarantee. (Some teams in my
>> work still have to use C++03.)
>>
>> "Boost.Spawn" could be an addition to Boost.ASIO, but not a replacement,
>> right?
>>
> 
> boost.spawn can not replace boost.asio - only it's functionality
> boost::asio::spawn()

I don't think Andrzej was suggesting that.

I think the question is fair - if Boost.Spawn (though I'd really prefer
a more specific name) is C++11, how Boost.ASIO can switch to it while
still supporting C++03?

And if Boost.Spawn is updated to also support C++03, how is it different
from Boost.Coroutine?