Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-29 11:55:40

At 12:00 AM 10/29/2001, mda_at_[hidden] wrote:

>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.

Over time, there has been a change in thinking in the LWG regarding a
threading library. I'd say it is now considered as being highly
desirable. All indications are that committee members consider a threading
library to be well within the scope of the TR.

On the other hand, enthusiasm for a GUI toolkit remains low. There might
be some interest in a GUI toolkit intended for teaching, if it was crippled
enough as to not be mistaken for serious platform work.

>i just can't believe that a few months of "shakeout" time is enough
>to understand the implications of any particular threading
>api proposal.

That's certainly true. The schedule the LWG has set covers a two year
period. That should allow enough time for major issues to surface.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at