From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-28 17:55:25
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 23:37 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Sohail Somani wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 20:27 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote:
> >> Robert Ramey wrote:
> >>> I'm looking at some code in boost/detail - in particular Lightweight
> >>> mutex.
> >>> Is there any chance that this as well as other useful modules
> >>> can get promoted to boost "first class" status. That is
> >>> would include thier own documentation(especially) and tests.
> >> Speaking of lightweight_mutex, it was only intended as a stopgap
> >> measure until the 'real' boost::mutex becomes header-only and
> >> 'lightweight'. This should happen any day now. :-)
> > I'm taking this to imply that the conversion is already occurring.
> > Could the header-only-ness please be made an option?
> I don't see how.
> What do you expect to gain from the optional header-only-ness?
Hmm. Well not #include'ing <windows.h> is one. I don't mean to start
this whole header-only thing again, *but* would be nice if it weren't
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk