From: Matthew Hurd (matthurd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-31 10:42:29
Fair enough. A Singleton is certainly worthwhile. It's just a matter of
how far to go. What is the answer to thread safety?
Is it documentation, caveat emptor? Is it #define BOOST_MT? Is it policy
abstraction in the code?
Is it worth worrying about? Should Boost care about this?
I like the idea of a boostified distributed library with locking, etc;
including support for singletons with optional thread safety. It would be
useful to my weary self.
From: Dave Abrahams [mailto:abrahams_at_[hidden]]
Sent: Thursday, 1 June 2000 1:05
Subject: [boost] Re: multi threading support
--- In boost_at_[hidden], "Matthew Hurd" <matthurd_at_o...> wrote:
> Note: ACE contains the double-check patterned solution to the
> thread safety question as referenced (in a John Vlissides link) in a
> previous post. Bottom line is Singleton is not too useful without
I have written hundreds of single-threaded programs which needed a
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk