On 7/25/07, Lothar Werzinger <lothar@tradescape.biz> wrote:

On Wednesday 25 July 2007 13:07, Graham Reitz wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Howard.  It is much appreciated.
>
> I know this a little out of boost scope, but since I have your attention:
>
> I don't know if the other members of the standards committee read this
> forum, but C++ threads is too important, for something like cancellation
> disagreements, to prevent it from becoming a C++ standard.
>
> >From an academic language perspective, how a thread cancellation proceeds
>
> might be important.  But for engineers, who are used to using libraries
> that 'are good enough', we find a way to make things work, elegant or not.
> Personally, I would take any of the proposed solutions if the alternative
> was no C++ thread support.
>
> Herb Sutter, at this years SD West Conference, spent a session talking
> about the future importance multi threaded applications, especially with
> the rise of multi-core cpus.  The memory hole is getter bigger and the
> expectation is that cpus with numerous cores will be the plug.   Based on
> this assumption, any language that expects to remain the future systems
> language must have thread support.
>
> (Committee members) Please find a way to compromise and push this through.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Graham

I happen to agree with Graham, it's fundamentally important that threads are
going to be part of C++0x.
It's good enough to say that the definition of some parts of threading (like
cancellation) are delayed for TR2 than not having threading in C++0x.

Lothar
--
Lothar Werzinger Dipl.-Ing. Univ.
framework & platform architect
Tradescape Inc.
111 West St. John Street, Suite 200
San Jose, Ca 95113
email: lothar@tradescape.biz
web: http://www.tradescape.biz
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users