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:
> 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
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
>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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk