On 05/23/2016 06:20 PM, Nat Goodspeed wrote:

Please do remember to state in your review whether you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library.

Yes, I vote for unconditional acceptance of Boost.Fiber. I did not participate in the formal review (due to time constraints), so I am not going to address the individual issues. I happened to have studied Boost.Fiber recently because I came across limitations of the inter-coroutine interaction in Boost.Coroutine, and Boost.Fiber addresses these limitations rather nicely. I especially like the message passing channels, which makes Boost.Fiber an obvious choice for building a coroutine-based actor framework. The only finding I have is that several Boost.Fiber headers include detail headers from Boost.Context. While this is not a problem per se (because Oliver is the maintainer of both libraries), it may be an idea to consider if these detail headers should be made public.