Boost logo

Boost :

From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-09 08:44:31

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]>

> I totally agree that the procedural semantics should resemble that of
> the C++ standard as much as possible, but the freedom of interpretation
> (i.e., the variety of possible mappings of the mono-threaded semantics
> to the multi-threaded "reality") should be acknowledged. Thus, the
> question whether something "complies" should be open for (a creative)
> discussion.

Again, the problem is that the underlying thread APIs don't specify what
happens in this case, while the C++ standard clearly does. So the choice is
to obey the standard, or invoke what's not only undefined by the standard,
but also by the threading APIs.

Bill Kempf

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at