On 3/14/2018 2:22 PM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
> @Seth, no, unless Boost devs guarantee to not change the API of
> boost::context again. This was the main reason for developing
> libcontext.
>
> Tom
>
Was there a technical reason why we didn't use boost::coroutine instead
of writing our own coroutine object based on the boost::context code?
It appears that boost::coroutine hid some of the underlying changes in
boost::context over time. This may have save us some grief.
On 3/14/2018 2:22 PM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
> @Seth, no, unless Boost devs guarantee to not change the API of
> boost::context again. This was the main reason for developing
> libcontext.
>
> Tom
>
Was there a technical reason why we didn't use boost::coroutine instead
of writing our own coroutine object based on the boost::context code?
It appears that boost::coroutine hid some of the underlying changes in
boost::context over time. This may have save us some grief.
Wayne