2012/12/31 Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard@ens-lyon.org>
On 31/12/12 12:37, Krzysztof Czainski wrote:
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 don't think it is. Many people seem to prefer the current behavior over std. So the idea I am suggesting is to leave the current Boost.Thread as is, so that people don't have to change their working code, and can still use the current version of Boost.Thread, preferably together with the new version. So I'm suggesting to prepare new Boost.Thread, that is intended forever to stay inside namespace threads2, and tell people if/when/why they should prefer threads2. 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;
Please note, that naming a namespace thread will collide with class thread. And the usual solution is adding 's' to the namespace, so the namespace is named in plural (please see [1] for an example). http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_52_0/libs/tuple/doc/design_decisions_rationa... Regards Kris