On 31/12/12 12:37, Krzysztof Czainski wrote:
2012/12/31 Tim Blechmann <tim@klingt.org>
All depend on what do you intend by significant added value. From my POV the std thread was designed more carefully than Boost.Thread which was the implementation of one of the first proposals. The implementation was just frozen until the standard was fixed.
What is the point of changing boost::thread to behave like std::thread?
The user can already choose to use std::thread behaviour - by using std::thread.
if you cannot use c++11 for some reasons, it is good to have source-compatible version in namespace boost ...
So how about Boost.Threads2 (like Signals2), while leaving Boost.Thread unchanged?
Isn't the BOOST_THREAD_VERSION_2 / VERSION_3 macro essentially equivalent? I guess it would be best if there was a boost::thread2 namespace, a boost::thread3 namespace, and that using those macros only did namespace thread = threadN;