Johan Nilsson wrote:
Has Boost.System been reviewed? If not, having a reviewed and accepted library depend on a not-reviewed-and-accepted one seems a bit strange IMHO.
I believe it is already an implementation detail of the filesystem library. Now it becomes a shared implementation detail of the asio library as well. I believe the goal of reviewing it as a separate library is to promote a clear publicly documented error handling strategy that can be shared and relied on by many libraries, inside and outside Boost. Once reviewed, I expect that API to become a bit more stable (as in fixed/unchanging) than what is today a library-specific implementation detail. I would also expect both those libraries named above to adopt the new API, especially given the goal of those authors. That said, if boost.system does not pass a review, filesystem and asio still need to handle/report errors and there is no reason they cannot continue using this implementation. There would simply be no mandate to share that API more widely. -- AlisdairM