Re: Draft of generation 2 thread class

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-19 11:59:59

--- In boost_at_y..., "Rainer Deyke" <root_at_r...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Becker" <voidampersand_at_f...>
> To: <boost_at_y...>
> 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_h...> 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?

Can't be used as a name in C++.  non_boost would work, but this seems 
arrogant to me somehow.  It seems to indicate we think less of 
threads not created through our library.

Bill Kempf