"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> writes:
Michael Glassford wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
So far there are plans to propose Boost.Threads,
Is this something that's already being worked on? I have some ideas that I've been thinking about to improve Boost.Threads, and some other ideas that have been suggested to me (primarily by Roland Schwarz), that I'd like to at least get other people's opinions of before a Boost.Threads proposal goes too far. Some of the ideas come from the big lock-unification discussion that took place on this list some time ago (although I think I've come up with some interesting ideas on that topic that weren't mentioned in that discussion). I have some other ideas as well that I think people might find intereting.
I'm interesting in reworking some areas of Boost.Threads that I find lacking, so you should probably announce your plans so that we can avoid duplication of efforts.
I'm not sure whether we need to bother, though. The current Boost.Threads already seems "fast-tracked" into C++0x, with Beman, Howard and Pete Becker behind it.
AFAIK nothing the LWG is doing now other than TR1 and fixing TR1 defects is going to make it into C++0x.
Major changes probably don't stand a chance. And I'm not very optimistic about any minor changes, either.
I think it's too early to make that judgement. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com