Re: [boost] [threads] final decision on making parts of Boost.Threadsheader-only

Subject: Re: [boost] [threads] final decision on making parts of Boost.Threadsheader-only
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-04 19:19:06

on Wed May 13 2009, "Johan Nilsson" <r.johan.nilsson-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> A few weeks ago we had a discussion about the convenience
>> of making part of Boost.Threads, namely mutexes and locks,
>> header-only. Some (including Anthony Williams) supported the
>> idea, others disliked it:
>>
>> http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/04/150524.php
>>
>> What the final decision on this issue is? If positive (i.e. favoring
>> the change), can it be expected to be done for Boost 1.40?
>
> I haven't read all of that thread, but why not do something similar to what Boost.Test
> does and provide an header-only/"include" version, with reduced functionality?

In principle it's possible to write the library such that you can use it
either way, with full functionality.  Not sure whether that's worth the
effort, but it has been proposed on this list before.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com