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++
> You wouldn't want to say "non-standard" threads - it would be confusing.
> Info: http://www.boost.org Send unsubscribe requests to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk