Boost logo

Boost Users :

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Forthcoming Boost.Fiber review
From: Nat Goodspeed (nat_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-18 21:01:58

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Carlos Ferreira <carlosmf.pt_at_[hidden]>wrote:

Nat, one question.
> How stable is the lib?
> Boost.Fiber seems to be exactly what I need, but I would prefer to use a
> stable version. Can you give me information regarding that aspect?
> Thanks! :)

It's exactly what I need too. Undergoing the Boost review process and
becoming officially part of the Boost libraries makes it that much more

Oliver has extensive self-testing. I know that he has run his tests and
examples on Windows, Mac and Linux, 32-bit and 64-bit, with a few different
gcc versions. I have successfully dropped it into (a fork of) a large
production program, replacing an older, less official library with similar
functionality. On that basis, I'm comfortable that it's ready for a broader

But it's really the review itself that allows us to call a library
"stable." You might mean: is the API still changing? or: how buggy is it,
on my platform, for my use case? The Boost review process invites many
people, on many platforms, with many use cases, to consider the API and
hopefully to test the library for themselves. The intention is to flush out
desired/required API changes, as well as obscure bugs. It is often the case
that a library author is requested to refine the API and then to resubmit
for a shorter review cycle.

Once the Boost community reaches consensus, then we can use the word
"stable" with more confidence.

Since you say you have a use case, if you would be so good as to try the
library yourself and submit a review, you will help it to reach "stable"

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at