From: Bronek Kozicki (brok_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-18 16:49:45
Caleb Epstein wrote:
>>* Obviously asio::thread should not be part of a boost proposal,
>> since that functionality is already covered by Boost.Thread.
> I do very much enjoy the 100% header implementation you have now, but
> having to link to a library would not be a show-stopper. It does seem
> a bit of a shame that a number of Boost libraries that are
> thread-safe/aware (SharedPtr, Pool, Regex) have provided their own
> e.g. mutex classes instead of using the ones in Boost.Threads. This
> is not a value judgement, just an observation.
I guess they would not, if required part of functionality of
Boost.Thread was available as a header-only implementation (ie. could be
used without introducing dependency on library files)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk