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> Tycoint.com> 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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk