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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-13 08:11:04

From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> --- In boost_at_y..., Ross Smith <ross.s_at_i...> wrote:
> > I'm giving up on this whole thing as of now. You've made it totally
> > clear that your mind is made up and you aren't prepared to engage
> in any
> > sort of discussion. I'm going to stop beating my head against a
> stone
> > wall and go do something more productive.
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way.  I feel that it's you who's not open to
> discussion on this topic, so it's probably just a communication
> disconnect, but I don't know how to get past it.
>
> As for having made my mind up on CVs, that's true.  I'm more than
> willing to include events at a later date, but I'm not going to budge
> from the inclusion of CVs from the very beginning.  I think you're
> the only one that's got a problem with that, and most people
> understand the reasoning behind this, and agree with it.

This assumption is dangerous. I would say that "most people" simply either
don't understand the issues involved, or don't care.

I'm not afraid to admit that I fall in the first category.

For instance, what is the boost.threads way to do the following:

void thread_function()
{
  init();

  for(;;)
  {
    waitForMultipleEvents(wakeup_event, terminate_event);
    if(terminate_event signalled) break;
    do_work();
  }

  cleanup();
}

I don't think that in general such debates can be resolved by e-mail without
the opponents preparing a paper with their view.

--
Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.