Re: boost::mutex::scoped_lock conventions

From: Alexander Terekhov (yg-boost-users_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-20 11:29:40

"William E. Kempf" wrote:
[...]
> The motivations are backwards here, though.  If the C++ language adopts a
> threading library, POSIX systems will have a lot of motivation for
> defining a POSIX C++ binding, or at the very least, making a particular
> implementation's POSIX binding compatible with the C++ threading.

How about moving this discussion to c.p.t.? 

regards,
alexander.

--
"// Possible implementation for <iohw.h>
 #include <hardware>
 using namespace std::hardware;"
             
                        -- 02-0054/N1396