Re: Boost.threads standardization wishlist

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 16:23:44

--- In boost_at_y..., Kick Damien-DKICK1 <dkick1_at_e...> wrote:
> bill_kempf [williamkempf_at_h...] wrote:
> > 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>.

I don't think it weakens the standard. It's no different then the 
myriad "optional" portions of the POSIX standards.  The key is that 
if an XYZ (in our case threading) library is provided it must conform 
to the standard.

> > > > 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...)

There were no "unfavorable reactions", per se, though there were 
questions raised.  You have to remember that this wasn't a formal 
submission, but was instead a 15 minute presentation (followed by a 
Q&A session).  The committee is very interested in supporting threads 
in the standard, but no decisions have been made. 

> > 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...

That's only one of the known holes :).  If cancellation is one of 
your concerns, however, I'd really appreciate your reading the posted 
design and commenting on it.  The design is more important then the 
implementation, after all :).
 
> > 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>...

*laughs*  This has been a short thread.  You should search the 
archives.
 
> Thanks for you time and for all your hard work on the subject.

Thank you for your feedback.  There's a long road ahead, and I can't 
do it with out people voicing concerns and giving me opinions.

Bill Kempf