Tom Brinkman <reportbase@gmail.com> writes:
One last sentence, we should not forget that the interface of the future library has already gone through the standard committe.
Why does Anthony not just slip "futures" it into boost::threads. He maintains that library. Its a non-issue. He doesn't need our approval to do that.
I did not do this precisely because Braddock submitted his library for review before mine was ready. If my implementation of futures had been the only one, I would have just added it as an extension of the thread library. Because Braddock had submitted an alternate implementation with a distinct interface it seemed presumptious of me to add it to Boost.Thread. I also hoped it would be reviewed before WG21 got to vote on the proposals, so the review could provide feedback to the committee.
Considering the way this review has floundered at this point, that is the best outcome that I can see.
I am happy to do this if that's what people want. Anthony -- Author of C++ Concurrency in Action | http://www.manning.com/williams just::thread C++0x thread library | http://www.stdthread.co.uk Just Software Solutions Ltd | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL, UK. Company No. 5478976