Boost logo

Boost :

From: pinkfloydhomer_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-03-06 10:37:00

--- In boost_at_y..., Lois Goldthwaite <loisg_at_o...> wrote:
> Not argument about the utility -- on the rare occasions when it's
> absolutely needed -- but is this really something a language can
> standardize? Isn't it dependent on a BIOS (or lower-level) facility
> the operating system might not expose?

I don't think so, but I see your point.
The same problem could occur with ifstream, cout etc.
It _could_ all be features that a certain O/S did not support, but
most do. Just as most O/S'es facilitates non-blocking I/O on certain
logical or physical devices. Just as there are some constants that
are defined by the system (the size of an int, the value of
CLOCKS_PER_SEC etc.) there could be some classes or functions that
were dependant on what the O/S was able to implement. At the very
least, the stream hierachy could have a class that supported non-
blocking fill of the buffer, that would return "as soon as possible",
that is, on most systems, it would return immediately, if nothing was
ready to be added to the buffer. cin could belong to this class, and
sure, programs using this feature in the way that I want my program
to, wouldn't work on a microwave oven, but it would work on the
machines I wanted it to work on.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at