Niall Douglas wrote:
The idea is that no one ever need implement the Concurrency TS themselves ever again. Just pick up a copy of Boost.Monad/Outcome. Write your policy class for your custom variant. Profit.
Is anyone besides Boost or standard library vendors actually interested in doing this? Standard library implementors are not going to take a dependency on a Boost library. For example: Are there many (or any) Filesystem TS implementations that people care about outside of standard library implementations and Boost? I just can't imagine someone, say, proposing Boost.Path that provides a boost::basic_path that can be used to implement std::experimental::filesystem::path and expecting anyone to care about it. Anyone implementing the TS will just implement std::experimental::filesystem::path themselves and not take a dependency on boost::basic_path to do it. What makes your basic_future so different to the hypothetical basic_path? Glen -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/afio-Formal-review-of-Boost-AFIO-tp467911... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.