Boost logo

Boost :

From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-10 11:50:22

> * Boost Threads has been reaffirmed as the LWG's choice as the basis for a
> TR2 threading library. Pete Becker's
> is the most
> recent version of the proposal. It will be refined and modified as work
> progresses. Howard Hinnant plans to propose unifying the lock classes into
> scoped_lock/shared_lock and possibly one other class. Pete will propose a
> function to access the underlying operating system handles to allow access
> to non-portable functionality. I've committed to review error handling to
> ensure handling of operating system errors is consistent between all TR2
> libraries.

Along with lock unification I would also propose mutex unification:
mutex, try_mutex, timed_mutex, recursive_mutex, recursive_try_mutex,
recursive_timed_mutex can be simplified into mutex and recursive_mutex
including try and timed functions. Current UNIX and Windows platforms
offer efficient implementations of all functions with native mutexes so
I see no need to have so many mutexes. Maybe this is an issue to comment
in comp.std.c++ but since it's based on boost, I think we should think
about it.

I think all desired modifications can be proposed in the current Boost
Thread rework effort and aren't too intrusive. For thread launching I
prefer Kevlin Henney's proposal approach. Has the committee rejected
this approach?



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at