Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz@chello.at> writes:
Oh, it seems I answered a little to fast. I had not received the entire thread while composing my mail.
Now since the license issues are resolved I rather should have asked if there still is interest or need for the rewrite at all.
The license question was only one of the proposed changes (but the most important of course.)
I try to sum up the other ones I had in mind:
1) split the code base into platform specific parts to reduce the clutter caused by "ifdefs". (Mostly done.)
2) Provide an easier to use side by side pthreads and native implementation, the user could choose from. Thereby providing a clean pthreads only version as a side effect, which could be helpful during approval, to show the migration path and compatibility with pthreads. (Partly done.)
3) Provide the boost build additions for the upcoming v2 version. (Currently in work.)
All of these ideas have merit; now you can feel free to prioritize them appropriately with other tasks without having to be concerned with doing a ground-up rewrite. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com