Re: [boost] Re: Draft of generation 2 thread class

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-19 11:31:10

I also like "platform"; it was one of the names I considered.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>; <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Draft of generation 2 thread class

> At 10:01 AM 1/19/2002, Rainer Deyke wrote:
>
>  >----- Original Message -----
>  >From: "Tom Becker" <voidampersand_at_[hidden]>
>  >To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
>  >Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:20 PM
>  >Subject: [boost] Re: Draft of generation 2 thread class
>  >
>  >
>  >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:12:50 -0000, "bill_kempf"
>  >> <williamkempf_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>  >> >I agree, and expected these names to raise controversy.  I just
>  >> >couldn't come up with alternatives. "boost" instead of the
>  >> >current "native" is a good choice.  I'm not so sure about
>  >> >using "native" instead of "foreign", though it's better.  I'm very
>  >> >open to suggestions here.
>  >>
>  >> How about "platform" threads?
>  >
>  >Or simply "non-boost" threads?
>
> While it is now Boost.Threads, the objective is inclusion in the C++
> standard.
>
> You wouldn't want to say "non-standard" threads - it would be confusing.
>
> --Beman
>
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Send unsubscribe requests to:
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>