Boost logo

Boost Users :

From: Roland (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-28 04:14:42

(Michael Glassford <glassfordm_at_[hidden]>) wrote:

> An interesting idea, and one that's almost certainly possible, but it
> would probably involve considerable uglification of the Boost.Thread
> code with ifdefs or some other mechanism, and possibly other problems.
> Nonetheless, it might be worth considering if enough people need it.

In my oppinion this depends on what one understands by "ugly".
I think it is "ugly" to have a threading library in non threading mode?!!
I don't think that it is just an "optimization" for the single threaded
case but a change of semantics, when used directly on the
synchronization primitives.
On the other hand I think it is fine to have a user (intermediate) library that "cleanly"
#ifdefs the fact that the threading library (synchronization) is not available.
In that case the semantics of my library is not changed, but optimized
for the single threaded case.

Just my 5 cents...


Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at