Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Boost.Fiber mini-review September 4-13

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Boost.Fiber mini-review September 4-13
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-09-06 17:56:00

Le 06/09/15 02:21, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit :
> Le 05/09/15 16:27, Nat Goodspeed a écrit :
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
>> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 04/09/15 20:37, Nat Goodspeed a écrit :
>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
>>>> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> Please could you recall us what "not in the present form" meant as a
>>>>> result
>>>>> of the review and what has been done to overcome these issues?
>>>> http://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2014/01/0393.php
>>>>
>>>> I have not yet tried to address those point by point.
>>> I don't understand then why are we doing the mini review now, before 
>>> you
>>> check that any point has at least tried to be addressed.
>> Sorry. How about these points:
>>
>> Performance: Oliver has not only worked to improve performance, he has
>> included and documented performance tests you can run on your own
>> hardware.
> Great, I will check.
> See below.
>> Documentation: The documentation now contains several new sections
>> explaining how to use the library for interesting/common use cases.
>> New examples are presented and documented.
> See below.
>>
>> API: The API has been aligned more closely with std::thread. C++14 is
>> not only supported but required. Move-only callables are supported.
>> Variadic parameters are supported. std::chrono is more generically
>> supported. Channels now support value_pop(). fiber_group has been
>> dropped. Migrating fibers between threads has been dropped.
> See below.
>> That said, of course, it is up to each reviewer to state for him- or
>> herself whether s/he believes that the Fiber library should become
>> part of Boost. In particular, regardless of what Oliver or I might
>> synopsize, it is up to each previous reviewer to decide whether his
>> January 2014 objections have been addressed.
> To be clear, I believe that by respect to the reviewers you should 
> take the review summary you wrote and add a comment for each point.
>
> Best,
> Vicente

Hi again,

In addition to my last request and in order to be able to write a 
review, I would like to know what exactly has been changed since the 
first review, what was expected after the review summary and what was 
removed, changed or added and what was the rationale.

Best,
Vicente