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. [...]
> > 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
I was hoping that the quotes around the word would smooth its rough
edges. I agree with you about "bug" being equivalent to missing
> > 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
> 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
> 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
Thanks for you time and for all your hard work on the subject.
-- Damien Kick
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk