From: Jesse Jones (jesjones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-03 19:58:02
>You comments about needing thread safety brings up a topic for
>discussion, however. Early in the development we talked about there
>being a need for synchronization primitives even before we include
>portable thread support. We're basically close enough now to focus
>on porting such primitives to various platforms and submitting an
>initial version of the library to Boost. My focus had moved on to
>TLS and thread support rather than on finishing the synchronization
>primitives, but maybe we should consider doing just this. Any
>thoughts from others on this?
I think this is the way to go. It'll be easier to discuss just
synchronization primitives instead of synchronization and threads and it
will probably provide a faster path to portably making libraries thread
safe which I think is at least as important as portable threads.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk