Subject: Re: [boost] [thread|interprocess] Boost.Synchro: Towards a generic view of synchronization mechanisms
From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-09 11:59:56
> This will be great but not completly necesary with the function approach. There is a difference that breaks more that the others, the exception thrown are different in both cases from the standard ones. This force to use a try-catch when the exceptions are not the standard ones.
> Anyway, could you say when do you think this should be available?
When the standard thread interface is definitely approved my the
committee. Now it's in the working paper, but there are pending issues.
>> Semaphores are different because they have different uses. If a
>> programmer wants to use a semaphore as a mutex, I think he should write
>> his own adapter, or in the future, write a concept_map.
> I think that the function template approach is more open in the same way we have free functions e.g. begin() end() on the range library. The partial specialization of the function templates is a kind of concept_map. Maybe I'm wrong but concept_maps will not be widely available too soon.
> So if I understand you think that the partial specialization of the function templates approach is not the good approach in this case for the mid_term. Please let me know, your opinon count a lot to me.
I don't know, my feeling is that Boost.Thread and Boost.Interprocess
should be interoperable without an additional library, just as a future
standard Interprocess C++ should be compatible with existing std::thread.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk