On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Christopher Jefferson <chris@bubblescope.net> wrote:
On 10 Feb 2009, at 17:08, David Abrahams wrote:
on Tue Feb 10 2009, Anthony Williams <anthony.ajw-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry for not taking the time to respond to all your comments. They are much appreciated. Maybe the lack of reviews indicates a lack of interest from the Boost community? That's a shame, if so.
From my point of view, I was interested, but I found the idea of reviewing two libraries at once to be simply overwhelming.
I want to back this up - I am very interested in futures, but I decided not to get involved in this review for two reasons.
1) Medium to long term, I want to be able to use, or build on, the standard futures, so I would like a library which strictly extends that. 2) I don't feel sufficently qualified to choose between two different libraries, and all the trade-offs involved, knowing (assuming?) that at least one of the libraries would have to be rejected.
Seconded. I'm quite interested in a futures library, but I didn't have the time nor the the ability to try to find out which library really were the be selected.
I would be much happier if the two library authors could come together and merge their work.
Yes please :) -- gpd