Re: [boost] Re: Threads docs updated in CVS

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-07 16:47:29

At 03:47 PM 8/7/2001, John Max Skaller wrote:

 >Beman Dawes wrote:
 >
 >> 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/threads/thread_doc_snapshot.zip
 >
 >	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?

OK, I'll take a look at that wording.

 >
 >'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
 >'front matter'.

Bill has already responded to this; it is on the issues list.   Why it is 
designed the way it is will be a FAQ, too, so we need to add something 
there.

 >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
 >	   abstract machine
 >
 >	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 :-]

Thanks!  Bill has worked very, very hard on all aspects, and gotten help 
from a huge number of people.

Once we get a formal review (which I hope to post a schedule for tomorrow), 
perhaps we can get some language experts from the Core Working Group to 
help with the abstract machine.

--Beman