Re: [boost] Report from Berlin C++ Standards Committee meeting

From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-10 14:34:26

Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
 
> 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?

You are not alone.  The problem is that Kevlin is a very busy man, and
has not yet produced a full working proposal.  Likewise, I am not aware
of a freely available reference implementation, whereas there are at
least 3 known separate implementations of the Boost threads interface.

The approach has not been rejected, but is unlikely to make it in time
for TR2.  Likewise, the thread library itself is most likely destined
for TR2 rather than C++0x, although I believe the evolution group would
prefer us to be more aggressive on this.

TR2 is shaping up nicely as a library offering system-services though,
with FileSystem accepted, and threads and networking strongly under
consideration.  Beeman's approach to error reporting for
system-specific errors could be broken out of FileSystem and become the
underpinning mechanism shared across all TR2 system-level libraries.

-- 
AlisdairM