From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-16 15:59:32
Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Oh, it seems I answered a little to fast. I had not received the entire
> thread while composing my mail.
> Now since the license issues are resolved I rather should have asked
> if there still is interest or need for the rewrite at all.
> The license question was only one of the proposed changes (but the
> most important of course.)
> I try to sum up the other ones I had in mind:
> 1) split the code base into platform specific parts to reduce the
> clutter caused by "ifdefs". (Mostly done.)
> 2) Provide an easier to use side by side pthreads and native
> implementation, the user could choose from. Thereby providing
> a clean pthreads only version as a side effect, which could be
> helpful during approval, to show the migration path and compatibility
> with pthreads. (Partly done.)
> 3) Provide the boost build additions for the upcoming v2 version.
> (Currently in work.)
All of these ideas have merit; now you can feel free to prioritize
them appropriately with other tasks without having to be concerned
with doing a ground-up rewrite.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com