Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [compute] Review period starts today December 15, 2014, ends on December 24, 2014
From: Sebastian Schaetz (seb.schaetz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-28 07:35:13

Gruenke,Matt <mgruenke <at>> writes:

> To me, it seems more useful to focus on suitability of the solution (i.e.
the proposed library) to a problem
> domain, rather than making legalistic arguments based on precedent.
> For instance, you could consider Boost.Thread and Boost.ASIO. They
would've been useful as simple
> pthreads and sockets API wrappers, respectively. But they went further.
Why? I'd like to think it's
> because this would've left out too many platforms with similar APIs, or
with native APIs that offered
> better performance than going through a pthreads or sockets emulation layers.

My argument is part of the discussion: "Should Boost.Compute be based on the
OpenCL C++ or OpenCL C layer?". My argument makes no sense when trying to
answer "Should Boost.Compute support one or multiple backends?".

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