Re: Report from Redmond

From: mda_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-10-29 00:00:42

--- In boost_at_y..., Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_a...> wrote:
>  >if the latter, i can understand why the boost threads library
>  >was brought up. if the former, i don't -- that library has
>  >to my knowledge yet to appear in a boost release, and has not
>  >completed the boost internal process, to the extent that
>  >has been formalized.
> 
> Boost.threads has passed formal review and is in the latest 
release.  Plus 
> Bill Kempf was available to present it to the LWG in person.

ah, yes, i now see it is in 1_25 (in fact its test directory takes
more than 1Mbyte by itself...)
it was not however in 1_24.
so it has been in a release for a month.

i've got nothing in particular against bill nor against the
boost thread library -- i don't know either.
i'm just thinking from my general experience that every API
i've ever designed changed considerably by the time i'd
shipped a product or two with it.

the only thing i can think of which is more controversial
and complicated than threading is gui toolkits.
i just can't believe that a few months of "shakeout" time is enough
to understand the implications of any particular threading 
api proposal.

> 
> Jeff Garland has a very interesting time and date library close to 
ready 
> for submission to Boost.  He presented in at OOPSLA in Tampa two 
weeks ago, 
> and it generated a lot of interest.

i'm very glad to hear it; i had just looked around a few weeks
ago and hadn't found anything satisfactory.

-mda