Re: [boost] Re: Re: Platform Neutrality - withoutreinterpret_cast<>andifdef

From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-05 15:40:50

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 3:07 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Platform Neutrality -
withoutreinterpret_cast<>andifdef

> I can understand the hit taken in the readability of the mutex
> implementation for "efficiency," but it is unacceptable for thread. I've
> read boost's biases and the thread implementation is a certain violation
of
> the heart of boost's principles.

Eric, I think you're getting confrontational.  Boost went through formal
review and no one had the objections to the *implementation* that you do.
More over, Boost.Threads is hardly the only Boost library that uses
conditional compilation in this manner.  If you're going to accuse me of
violating the heart of Boost's principles you'd better back it up with
citations.

Truth be told, a pre-review version of the library used the PIMPL idiom for
the reasons you cited, and it received numerous complaints for having done
so.  The current usage of conditional compilation is a result of the Boost
membership requesting this.

Bill Kempf