RE: [boost] Re: Boost.threads standardization wishlist

From: Kick Damien-DKICK1 (dkick1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 15:40:21

bill_kempf [williamkempf_at_[hidden]] wrote:

> --- In boost_at_y..., Kick Damien-DKICK1 <dkick1_at_e...> wrote:
> > Wil Evers [Wil_Evers_at_d...] wrote:
> > > 

> We must pay attention to existing practice (this means both POSIX
> and Windows as well as other MT endeavors such as Java Threads), but
> we must also be careful that our personal biases toward some library
> that we're used to using doesn't adversely effect the design of a
> C++ solution.  [...]

Fair enough.

> > Well, I am a developer who has a POSIX bias; i.e. I don't know
> > Windows and have never written a line on it.  What I really would
> > love to have would be POSIX++, a standard for C++ interfaces to
> > system functionality as POSIX is for C.  I would love to have
> > Pthreads++, for example.  When I go looking at Boost.threads, I am
> > evaluating it against this hypothetical Pthreads++.  Anything that
> > Pthreads++ would provide that Boost.threads does not, I count as a
> > "bug" against Boost.threads.

> "Bug" is a bit harsh, but in general I fully agree with you as long
> as you speak in terms of missing functionality.  If there are things
> you find still missing, please, speak up!  Some things are only
> missing because they simply haven't been implemented yet, but it's
> also possible I've missed functionality, which would be a terrible
> thing.

I was hoping that the quotes around the word would smooth its rough
edges.  I agree with you about "bug" being equivalent to missing
functionality...

> > but what about, for example, programmers working in an embedded
> > environment in which there is no concept of threads/processes?
> 
> There will be no requirement for them to support threads.  This is
> obviously true in Boost.Threads, and my understanding is that this
> is the thinking of the Committee members as well.

But doesn't that weaken the standard?  I mean, if standard C++ is not
the same on every platform <pause> we'll end up with the mess we're
currently in with C++ compilers <smile>.

> > > A few weeks ago, a posting by Beman Dawes to
> > > comp.lang.c++.moderated caught my attention.  The posting said
> > > that Boost.threads had been submitted to the Committee for their
> > > upcoming C++ Standard Library Technical Report, and that the
> > > initial response from the Committee had been favorable.
> > 
> > Do no members of the committee share Marc Briand's view?  Do no
> > members see Boost.threads, for example, as suffering from the
> > lowest common denominator syndrome?

> I won't presume to speak for the members, but I *think* they realize
> that Boost.Threads is still undergoing development.  Though I
> presented to the committee, and the reactions I received were
> favorable, there's not been a formal submission of a complete
> proposal yet.

Would anyone else who is either a member of the standard or has
attended meetings be able to add their summaries?  Again, I really am
curious to read about the unfavorable reactions, assuming there were
some, to get a balanced point of view.  (Perhaps I should lurk on the
comp.lang.c++.moderated thread...)

> I understand your fears and concerns, but I hope I can keep this
> from becoming panic.  There's a long road to go yet, and we've not
> even begun to pick things apart to the level we'll need to for a
> formal submission.

Again, fair enough.  We'll see how things go with implementing
cancellation...

> If you have specific concerns, bring them up on this list, and I
> assure you they will be addressed before the Committee has to go
> through the process of evaluating a formal submission.

Well, I'm still trying to catch up with the thread after Wil Evers
comments <smile>...

Thanks for you time and for all your hard work on the subject.

--
Damien Kick