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

From: Ross Smith (ross.s_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-08 16:18:12

williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:
> 
> OK, last time it degenerated into a flame war, so I bowed out.

Me too.

> Let's
> keep the flames out of this and maybe we can get somewhere.  You
> think that it's to pthread specific, but I totally disagree with
> you.  Regardless, however, even if it were 100% exactly like
> pthreads, in what way does this make the library unusable to you?

It doesn't make it unusable, any more than plain unwrapped pthreads or
winthreads are unusable. It makes it, just like pthreads or winthreads,
sufficiently less than optimal that I'd rather use my own library. When
Boost threads are ready for prime time, I may consider rewriting my
threads library to wrap Boost threads instead of pthreads/winthreads
directly, depending on what Boost threads end up looking like.

I did say that I wasn't interested in starting the debate all over
again. I answered the question because it would have been impolite to
ignore it, but I'm beginning to regret it. Bill, I'm willing to discuss
it with you in private email if you like. If you'd rather not, I'm
perfectly happy with that too. But I'm not willing to start it up on the
list all over again, where I'll just get drowned out all over again.

-- 
Ross Smith <ross.s_at_[hidden]> The Internet Group, Auckland, New Zealand
========================================================================
"Unix has always lurked provocatively in the background of the operating
system wars, like the Russian Army."                  -- Neal Stephenson