Boost logo

Boost :

From: Aaron W. LaFramboise (aaronrabiddog51_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-10 19:23:28

Howard Hinnant wrote:

> The only suggestion I have here, from a standards point of view, is
> for the standard to anticipate and support user-defined mutexes/locks
> in the easiest way possible so that libraries such as boost can easily
> build upon the standard foundation. This philosophical foundation is
> in the standard-proposed document. Whether or not we've actually
> achieved this goal is a separate question. ;-)

Is there a summary somewhere regarding the extensibility features of the
threading library?

In particular, is this threading library you're standardizing going to
create threading objects that hide their thread handle such that they
can't be extended to work with custom multiplexers?

[I am horribly concerned by the ever-increasing trend to write
concrete-style components that support only least-common-denominator
system features, with no possibly way to extend them due to inability to
'get at' some inner handle. Boost filesystem, Boost thread, iostream
all do this, making it impossible for even a completely normal vanilla
single-threaded GUI program to be able to safely use them (due to the
fact they might block, and there's no way to multiplex them with the
GUI, despite the fact the OS would be able to do this).

The net effect is that these style of components are mostly useless to
most modern single-threaded applications writers. I am hoping this
threading library you are working on is something I will actually be
able to use, and not just something made for terminal-based POSIX systems.]

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at