Re: [boost] Re: future of boost.threads

From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-10 18:53:31

At Tuesday 2004-02-10 08:45, you wrote:
>David Bergman wrote:
> >
> > There seem to be two schools here: (1) the Standardists, striving to
> > follow The Standard verbatim, and (2) the Pragmatics, trying to see
> > how different mechanisms would affect their daily struggles with real
> > problems.
>
>Sorry, that's nonsense.

with exactly (no more, no less) respect than you showed David

Peter, I think you simply "don't get it".

>  Nobody in the world is (1), and the only reason to
>bring up this hypothetical school division is as an excuse to write broken
>code that happens to work today.

your definition of "broken" apparently doesn't match mine.  I wish to be 
able to view a thread invocation as a delayed (possibly remote) procedure 
call, which _may_ return something (including an exception).
Insistance that I cannot do that seems pointlessly pedantic?  You haven't 
shown _why_ it's pointless.
I say it's a useful technique, you say it's rubbish.
Adopting what I want in this instance allows me to work and does _nothing_ 
to what you do.
Adopting your point of view, prevents me from implementing some solutions.

Which way do you want to play the game?

>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"