Eric,
Please explain which of the communities design principles you believe have been "brutally" ignored? I assume that you have followed the design and implementation of boost::threads since the beginning (with all the attendant discusions), and are hence prepared to provide a detailed analysis that will back up this claim?
 
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Woodruff
To: boost@lists.boost.org
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Platform Neutrality-withoutreinterpret_cast<>andifdef

Please explain how boost users are supposed to maintain a level of confidence in the safety of this foundation that is aimed at addressing the impotence of C++ itself, by providing things that were left out of the standard, when the communities own design philosophies are brutally ignored by its own members.
 
Boost doesn't stand to make any profit, so then why doesn't it stand on it's principles above the alternatives? It seems that upon examination, boost is going the way of all other open projects that exist. This is leading me to believe that inspecting of OpenSceneGraph, which also provides an image of holding high-standards, will prove the same.
----- Original Message -----
From: William E. Kempf
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
Sent: Monday, 2002:August:05 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Platform Neutrality -withoutreinterpret_cast<>andifdef

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff@falsetto.com>
To: <boost@lists.boost.org>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 3:07 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Platform Neutrality -
withoutreinterpret_cast<>andifdef


> I can understand the hit taken in the readability of the mutex
> implementation for "efficiency," but it is unacceptable for thread. I've
> read boost's biases and the thread implementation is a certain violation
of
> the heart of boost's principles.

Eric, I think you're getting confrontational.  Boost went through formal
review and no one had the objections to the *implementation* that you do.
More over, Boost.Threads is hardly the only Boost library that uses
conditional compilation in this manner.  If you're going to accuse me of
violating the heart of Boost's principles you'd better back it up with
citations.

Truth be told, a pre-review version of the library used the PIMPL idiom for
the reasons you cited, and it received numerous complaints for having done
so.  The current usage of conditional compilation is a result of the Boost
membership requesting this.

Bill Kempf
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost