From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-13 09:17:16
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan'l Miller" <optikos_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 7:24 AM
Subject: [boost] Re: Thread Interest Query
> > The design of the two libraries is pretty
> > different and I wonder if maybe including options for either would
> > be better than trying to address everything in one library.
> I differ with you there. I see no reason that there needs to be two
ways of representing a thread in C++0x. I see no reason that there needs to
be two ways of representing a mutex in C++0x. There should be one
multithreading library of larger scope than Boost.threads. For example,
Boost.threads considers interaddress-space synchronization (e.g.,
inter-process semaphores controlling shared memory) as out of bounds.
Strictly and categorically false. Interaddress-space synchronization has
*ALWAYS* been planned for Boost.Threads, and will exist in the next
revision. This will be done through an attribute on the Mutex types, the
same as it's done for pthread_mutex_t types. Don't confuse the hot topic of
semaphores with this topic.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk