Re: [boost] [threads] rework notes

From: Peter Petrov (ppetrov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-06 20:55:15

Matt Hurd wrote:
> There are two other alternatives:
> 
>   1.  enable both by configuration macro (cpp becomes is used as an
> ipp) - unusual
> 
>   2.  decide on which should be header only to suit lib authors as I
> suspect simple synch primitives such as mutexes and their locks are
> needed by most authors.
> 
> On balance the volume of the voices seems to indicate a preference for
> library approach rather than a header only attempt.
> 
> Votes?  Further pros or cons?

My vote would be for the hybrid approach - i.e. basic stuff is inline by
default, but in the rare cases when system headers cause problems, it
should be possible to switch to library-based implementation using a
configuration macro. This should please everyone.

Some essential boost libraries currently include system headers anyway -
for example, shared_ptr causes inclusion of windows.h.