Re: boost::mutex::scoped_lock conventions

"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 #include <hardware> using namespace std::hardware;" -- 02-0054/N1396