From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-22 20:16:09
Ok, this is my last post for approximately 24 hours (for unrelated,
personal reasons). If I don't answer in a timely fashion for a day,
please know that it is not because I'm ignoring you.
I wanted to leave off with a few "PS" type comments:
On Aug 22, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Zach Laine wrote:
> Could the folks who object to the
> current design spell it out for me a bit more explicitly -- what in
> the design is dangerous/inconvenient enough to throw away one or more
> of the 4 goals?
I would like to see an answer to Zach's question too. I do not know
what the major objection is with the "current proposal". I only know
that people are suggesting alternatives.
Several suggestions have been made in the area of name changes. In my
discussions of the current issues I've been purposefully ignoring
those suggestions strictly for the purpose of reducing confusion. For
example I don't want to switch mid stream from using "unique_lock" to
"exclusive_lock" or "owns" to "holds_mutex" because I fear it will
only confuse the debate. Please know that I'm not ultimately ignoring
these suggestions, and am receptive to them. It is my hope that we
can settle the larger semantics questions and then narrow in on the
syntax. And the syntax suggestions are most appreciated.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk