Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

On 10/3/2011 2:31 PM, TONGARI wrote:
> 2011/9/29 TONGARI <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     In the thread:
>     http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-for-qi-seek-directive-td3830251.html
> 
>     I've proposed this directive, and I'd like to know your opinions.
>     Though Thomas Bernard had provided another interesting idea, I'm not proposing that ATM.
>      
>     If you consider to accept this component, please let me know and tell me the next step
>     to take (e.g. submission).
> 
> 
> Anybody there? Joel?  Hartmut?
> I can't move on without your help...

Ooops, sorry. I missed your post. TBH, I wasn't able to follow the
thread. A very basic question that pops in my mind is: can't this
be done without the directive?

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://boost-spirit.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1