Re: [boost] Future of Boost.Thread, date-time, and C++0x

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-08 11:46:47

Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Anthony Williams wrote:
>> I'm trying to update trunk to be have more of the C++0x interface at the
>> moment. I've already integrated call_once (though I forgot only MSVC has
>> _ReadWriteBarrier, and I haven't done the variadic arguments yet), and I'm
>> currently working on the mutexes. I'm keen to get everything updated as much
>> as possible before the 1.35 cutoff. I've got a reasonably up-to-date Windows
>> implementation to use as a basis, and I've been working through the POSIX
>> stuff.
>> 
>> Also, even though it's been punted to TR2, I want to get the read-write mutex
>> back in --- I have a new implementation, and it's been missing since 1.32, so
>> it would be good to get it back in the relese.
>
> Ok, that sounds good, although are you going to maintain a 'classic' interface 
> for existing users?  Given the changes in the interface going straight from 
> the current boost.thread to 0x interfaces would require some client rework. 
> One thought would be to put the new stuff in namespace c++0x or std?

Well, I've left the boost::mutex::scoped_lock typedefs in for now, even though
they're just typedefs to boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>. The constructor
parameters have changed in line with the C++0X proposal, though.

I've just added a backwards-compatibility overload for call_once (the order of
args has changed).

> I have a draft implementation of the date-time types you need -- I think 
> Howard has been distributing that as well -- it needs some update because we 
> made some name changes.  I don't know that I want to incorporate directly into 
> Boost date-time just yet, so maybe we want to put it in thread for now? 
> Anyway, I'll contact you off-list and so we can figure out the details.

boost/thread/thread_time.hpp contains a minimal date-time interface for thread
(based on boost::datetime). This seems to be sufficient --- is it not?

> One other thing I forgot about was the atomics stuff -- that was voted in as 
> is.  Is anyone working on a Boost implementation of that stuff?  I know there 
> is some of this floating around in shared ptr or something.

I have some partial implementations --- I was waiting to see what the final
outcome was before trying to keep up to date. I know Peter Dimov had a more
complete implementation, but I don't know whether it's up to date.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Just Software Solutions Ltd - http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL