From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-19 12:02:26
--- In boost_at_y..., Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_a...> wrote:
> At 10:01 AM 1/19/2002, Rainer Deyke 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
> >> >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
> You wouldn't want to say "non-standard" threads - it would be
I'm not sure that the categorization policy being used here will be
required by the standard. If not, it's much better that it not be
used. These categories are only needed because I have to maintain
portability with out any direct access to platform internals.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk