RE: [boost] Re: Report from Redmond

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.

Anson

-----Original Message-----
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
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.

--Beman

Info: http://www.boost.org  Unsubscribe:
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]> 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/