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

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-11 13:27:20

Peter wrote: 

> Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
> > At Tuesday 2004-02-10 17:11, you wrote:
> >> I don't think that my point of view is what you think it is.
> >
> > given that I normally agree with you I'm beginning to think I 
> > mis-interpreted your comments here apology tendered
> 
> It's only fair since I probably misinterpreted David 
> Bergman's remark, for which I owe him an apology.
> 
> David, please accept my sincere apologies. While I think I 
> kept up with the technical content, I must have missed the 
> rest of the context that prompted your response.

To complete our meta loop, I too apologize for wasting bandwidth with
rhetorics.

I think we all want to either improve or clarify the Boost.Thread framework,
to suit both the theoretic and pragmatic sides of ourselves. I posted a list
of the (what I consider to be) three aspectes of the thread library under
discussion, although I think it was HTML:ed by my mail client :-( 

I have not used Boost.Thread for the last year, so I will catch up today (I
am using PThreads in a financial project, and would love to have an
incentive to switch to Boost.Thread anyway...) and look at how one could
introduce typelists specifying the *expected* exceptions to the "thread
manager," suggested by Brock, me, and others. 

/David