Date: 2001-10-29 11:27:15
--- In boost_at_y..., mda_at_d... wrote:
> --- 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...)
Huh? The test directory has 2 files, Jamfile at < 1KB and
test_thread.cpp at 12KB. That's a max of 13KB which is a far sight
from 1MB. In fact, the entire boost\libs\thread directory tree takes
only 314KB including CVS cruft (so the release in Zip format should
be even smaller).
> 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.
Yes, but with out trying to speak for the committee (which I can't
do) that's precisely why it's important to start considering such a
library. Before it can actually be accepted and standardized there's
going to have to be a lot of feedback from library implementors in
order to insure that a threading library meets the needs of
everyone. Don't confuse the interest in the library given by the
committee as a final acceptance. No new libraries have been accepted
> 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.
"Shakeout" generally speaks more to the implementation then to the
design, which is less interesting for the standard. Otherwise,
you're quite correct here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk