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

From: John Max Skaller (skaller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-15 20:42:46

williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:

> >
> >       I can only repeat myself. Does the lack of events
> > create a _conflict_, or are they simply missing, so that
> > they could be added later.
> 
> Simply missing, no conflict.

        Does Ross agree?
 
> >       If they can be added later, I am less concerned
> > than if they cannot be added later (that is, the current
> > design precludes them).
> 
> They can be added easily later (after working out the proper design).

        Ross should accept your word for that, since you're the
implementor.

> I've given a better explanation, but this is Win32 specific.  

        That's OK. Understanding one model first isn't a bad start.

> Even if
> Boost.Threads includes events in the future there's no guarantee that
> they will work in precisely the same manner.

        Of course not. The issue is whether the semantics
support the same general class of operations that events
are perceived as being useful for. The exact class may vary,
as can the implementation -- by which I mean the exact interface
used to play with the event model. Indeed, since we're
talking C++ not C, I'd expect differences :-)

-- 
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