From Robert Ramey
to move those 3 libraries to the 'detail' namespace of Boost.Task and have review as it is, as opposed to waiting. What do you think?
I think I caught hell for doing something similar in the serialization library. I had to make a number of components such as BOOST_STRONGTYPEDEF, state_saver, smart_cast, etc. which I put into boost - (not detail) and year afterwards this was raised as a huge problem. And this was even though the components had been their through two reviews. So I would be careful about doing this.
This seems a little more negative than I remember. If we are thinking of the same thread (see e.g. http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/11/130567.php ) then a lot of the discussion was about headers directly in the boost root directory rather than a subdirectory, rather the issue at hand. My opinion is that there is no overarching programming design deity that is going to come down and smite us if we be a bit pragmatic. So what if Move [*], Fiber and Atomic get "smuggled" in if Task gets reviewed and accepted first? They don't have to be documented as accepted - on the contrary the documentation could have appropriate warnings as *not* formally accepted apart for indirect use via Task.
Another issue is: if Boost.Task depends upon Boost.Fiber and Boost.Atomic, what happens if the Boost.Fiber or Boost .Atomic are not approved?
Sometimes the laudable goal of perfection turns open source projects into games of Nomic! Again, pragmatism should play a role here else Boost will never be the rich and full set of libraries that it fantastically could be. Pete [*] Move seems so core these days - another bit of pragmatism would see that fast-tracked through.