Re: Draft of generation 2 thread class

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 12:09:37

--- In boost_at_y..., "terekhov" <terekhov_at_d...> wrote:
> [...]
> > > May I just repost 
> > > the last message I've sent to you yesterday (you did not reply 
> > > yet)?
> > 
> > Feel free to.  I haven't replied because there wasn't much new 
that 
> I 
> > felt required replies, and I'm hip deep in other things :).
> 
> To:	"William Kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
> cc:	bdawes_at_a..., pdimov_at_m... 
> From:	Alexander Terekhov/Germany/IBM_at_IBMDE
> Subject:	Re: Boost.Thread/thread_ptr ?!

[snip]

Like I said before, I don't see too much that needs an immediate 
reply, though I'm looking forward to hearing other voices on this.  
However, I'd like to ask an important question: is there anything in 
the redesign I've posted that makes building your thread_ptr design 
on top of it either difficult or impossible? The answer to this, I 
think, will help to illuminate problems in the direction I'm leaning 
towards now, as well as to decide whether or not either of us is 
totally off base here. Note that answering "no, there's nothing in 
the posted design that makes things difficult or impossible to use it 
as the basis for implementing my design" will not necessarily 
gaurantee that your design won't be considered.

Bill Kempf