From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-07 19:24:37
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <beman_at_[hidden]>
> As someone who doesn't understand the discussion, I'd like to hear if the
> other participants agree with Karl's conclusion that two library
> are needed. One targeting "multithread[ing], generic functors, and speedy
> callbacks". Another targeting "multicast, lifetime and even event queuing
> and ... callbacks."
My experience as a user overlaps strongly with Karl's, and I tend to believe
the people that want the other design. My only question, before buying
wholesale into the conclusion, is "can we have a few examples of real-world
applications for the non-reference-counted version, to justify the
`optimization'?" Probably that's already been discussed; if so, I missed it.
> >On the surface these look like loads of overlap with both having
> >adaptors, creation, and providing a way to call a single callback.
> >But the points of the design are indeed vastly different.
> If this is indeed the agreed rationale for boost eventually supplying two
> components rather than one, please, please, save it away somewhere so we
> don't have to try to reconstruct it later!!!
Don't worry, egroups saves all our messages ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk