[boost] Re: Re: Pure Abstraction Layer

From: Eric Woodruff (Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-12 19:31:00

RE: [boost] Re: Pure Abstraction LayerAnthony,

I believe the conversation was basically about source (header) dependencies
anyway.

In any case, since the PIMPL idiom is going to be used in the next version
of boost::thread, progress is being made in the right direction.

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Williams
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
Sent: Thursday, 2002:August:08 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: Re: Pure Abstraction Layer

From: Braden McDaniel [mailto:braden_at_[hidden]]
Sent: 07 August 2002 19:58
> I've already heard a few good arguments here, but let me try
> to add to the
> list: the scenario you describe strikes me as pretty contrived. Why
> *wouldn't* a Win32 developer have the Win32 SDK? Or a POSIX developer
> pthreads?
The theoretical win32 developer might be using something like the mingw port
of gcc, which doesn't work with the win32 SDK --- only the headers and
libraries explicitly ported can be used.
Anthony