From: Anson Tsao (ansont_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-29 16:24:44
Was the function library submitted to the LWG as well? Since the
threading library is dependant on it.
From: Beman Dawes [mailto:bdawes_at_[hidden]]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 8:56 AM
To: boost_at_[hidden]; boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Report from Redmond
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
library to be well within the scope of the TR.
On the other hand, enthusiasm for a GUI toolkit remains low. There
be some interest in a GUI toolkit intended for teaching, if it was
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
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.
Info: http://www.boost.org Unsubscribe:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk