Re: Re: [boost] Re: Next revision of boost::thread

From: Greg Colvin (Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-10 17:02:29

At 02:53 PM 1/10/2003, Beman Dawes wrote:
>...
>
>Some platforms are so limited they fall outside the standard's "hosted" category, and we don't have to worry about them.
>
>Some platforms are fully featured, so again no worries.
>
>What you are worrying about seems to me to be platforms which might possibly support threads-lite, but not a full Boost.Threads implementation. One solution is to just say no. Another is to require the implementor simulate the missing features. Implementors should make their own call on that, based on their understanding of their market.
>
>There is some chance you might talk me into accepting two flavors of threading for the Standard - full threads and threads-lite in effect.

For what's it's worth, at work we have implemented complete
Java thread support in our VM despite having to run in a
single-threaded environment.  We had to fake everything with
cooroutines.

But then again, I would be happy to have a simple coroutine
facility in the standard, whether as a subset of the thread
facility or seperately, as cooroutines are much simpler to
implement and to program with.