On 21.06.2015 12:05, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Le 02/06/15 11:00, Oliver Kowalke a écrit :
coroutine2 is a C++14-only library, providing cleaner code (maintainability) + it fixes some issues (moveable-only parameters). boost.coroutine will be deprecated. Up to when boost.coroutine will be deprecated? By what users of boost.coroutine in c++98 would replace the deprecated library? Is there any library in Boost that depends on Boost.Coroutine?
Boost.ASIO depends on Boost.Coroutine, although I didn't dig deep enough to know strong the dependency is.
I've the impression that you will need to maintain it still for some years.
+1. As long as Boost.ASIO remains a C++03 library it cannot be ported to Boost.Coroutine2. Either Boost.ASIO has to be ported to a different coroutine implementation or Boost.Coroutine has to remain in Boost and be maintained.
I'm wondering if coroutine2 needs a review, even if the interface remains the same compared to boost.coroutine.
In your case, you are adding more but restricted to C++14 compilers. I don't think that review is needed in this is the case.
I believe that it is up to you to decide if you needs a review. Spirit uses to request a review for each new version, but the interface are not preserved.
I don't think I've seen a review request for X3. Anyway, Oliver, if your library design is the same and interface is unchanged then the only reason you might want people to review your library is to have someone inspect the implementation and perhaps docs. It's a very valid reason and you are welcome to request a review, but bear in mind that the main focus point of Boost reviews is design and interface, so you might not receive as much feedback. A mini-review might be better. OTOH, if Boost.Coroutine2 is a new design then I think review is in order.