On Friday 13 December 2002 14:50, Beman Dawes wrote: > Yes, but I think we should try to stick closely to the LWG proposal. In > fact, it might be an advantage for standardization to have an exact > implementation. (It might be worth asking Matt Austern how he proposes to > change the interface to deal with the issues still on the table.) > > Something completely different might be OK, too, but it doesn't serve > anyone's interest to do something "almost standard". That was the point of > the question.
I agree totally. So the optimal solution would be to start from Matt's work. Another plan would be to start from Jeremy Maitin-Shepard's implementation and to try to converge to Matt's proposal ! _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
