Re: [boost] boost.spawn: review requested

On 11/30/21 22:26, Oliver Kowalke via Boost wrote:

Andrzej Krzemienski schrieb am Di., 30. Nov. 2021, 20:21:

...

pon., 29 lis 2021 o 21:39 Oliver Kowalke via Boost napisał(a):

...

Am Mo., 29. Nov. 2021 um 21:30 Uhr schrieb Niall Douglas via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org>:

...

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?