From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-25 20:59:34
"Michael Glassford" <glassfordm_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> So far there are plans to propose Boost.Threads,
> Is this something that's already being worked on?
Sort of. The extensions working group is encouraging work on core language
memory model wording to make threading more legitimate. They have asked
someone to coordinate with library folks, but I don't think anything has
been done yet. So in the meantime, nothing appears to be happening. That
isn't at all uncommon - the committee is all volunteers, so there are
periods of inactivity. But there is a lot of interest in threading, so I
expect one or more actual proposals to surface.
> I have some ideas that I've been thinking about to improve Boost.Threads,
> and some other ideas that have been suggested to me (primarily by Roland
> Schwarz), that I'd like to at least get other people's opinions of before
> a Boost.Threads proposal goes too far. Some of the ideas come from the big
> lock-unification discussion that took place on this list some time ago
> (although I think I've come up with some interesting ideas on that topic
> that weren't mentioned in that discussion). I have some other ideas as
> well that I think people might find intereting.
> On a related note, my last day at my job was Friday, so hopefully after a
> bit of transition I'll have some more time actually to work on this and
> also work on various bug reports before the next release.
If you (or Peter, or anyone else) has ideas for improving Boost.Threads, now
is the time to get going on them.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk