From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-19 11:06:05
Kevin Atkinson said:
> Are you, or are you not interested in my Lock Classes. The messages I
> got from you is that you are only interested in my lock classes if
I haven't had a chance to really evaluate anything here. You'll have to
give me some more time.
> 1) It is reproposed as an extension to the locking mechanism in Boost
I'd say it would at least have to play nice with Boost.Threads. If *I*
find the idea interesting, I'd personally lean towards making it part of
Boost.Threads. But technically that wouldn't be an absolute requirement
for it being considered by Boost at large (even if I'd suspect you'd find
many people interested only if it were part of Boost.Threads).
> 2) It is reworked to somehow be an extension of the smart pointer
> concept, even though it has very little relation to smart pointers.
I haven't looked at this at all, so I can't comment too much. But there's
a lot to be said for having a "locking_ptr" concept, which may be why
people are advocating it here.
> I have got very little indication that you actually looked at what my
> classes are offering.
> I am not trying to be sarcastic here. I generally don't know what your
> intentions are.
Any single individuals "intentions" are not too important here. Since any
form of locking is extremely relevant to Boost.Threads I hope you and I
can discuss the ideas once I can find the time to look at it properly, but
regardless, if you feel strongly about the ideas you can work to get them
accepted into Boost with or with out the backing of any individuals. It's
the group consensus that will really matter, and since we're in a crunch
time, like Beman and others have pointed out, you'll not get that kind of
feedback, pro or con, at this point in time.
-- William E. Kempf
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk