From: John Max Skaller (skaller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-07 14:47:37
Beman Dawes wrote:
Thanks! So now you get my comments :-)
The motivation is only partially right. Even on single CPU machines,
we want multi-threaded programming, but there is no parallelism at all,
except deep in the CPU. So why not just say multi-threaded programming?
'xt is reached' ??
Try 'until xt milliseconds have elapsed
since the function call began'? You need to give units,
and to specify the initial event from which timing begins,
and also specify how precise the timing is. The latter is non-trivial:
I suspect you have to say 'when _at least_ xt milliseconds have elapsed,
and when at most xt+IMPLEMENTOR_DEFINED_LIMIT milliseconds have elapsed.
Then you need to add that xt shall fall into an implementor defined
range. Probably, this is all complex enough to warrant some
In general --- this is really good stuff! I like the design,
and approve of most of the design decisions. I get the feeling that
a) I could use the library easily having read the doco
b) it's beginning to 'spec down' the changes needed for the
c) the design lets me shoot myself if I want, or use safer
alternatives if I want
d) the decision to build a C++ library from ground up,
rather than wrapping a C API is well justified
by the actual design (and well explained in the doco)
No, its not anywhere near ready for Standardisation.
But it's very close to being immediately useful, and well on the
track for gaining the experience needed -- with both the model
and its documentation -- to prepare a submission for Standardisation.
[And I'm not trying to be politically acceptable this time :-]
-- John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller_at_[hidden] 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850 New generation programming language Felix http://felix.sourceforge.net Literate Programming tool Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk