Peter Dimov wrote:
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. Major changes probably don't stand a chance. And I'm not very optimistic about any minor changes, either.
Oops. (Thanks Dave Abrahams for writing me about this thread.) That's news to the group that is actively working on standardizing a memory model for C++. (See http://jupiter.robustserver.com/pipermail/cpp-threads_decadentplace.org.uk/ for details.) I think I'd be representing the opinion of the entire group by saying that a library-only approach is naive at best. See for example "Threads Cannot Be Implemented As A Library" by Hans Boehm at http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-209.pdf, paper admitted at the prestigious conference PLDI 2005 (sign that others believe Hans actually makes sense). Actually I believe that any expert in threading would cringe at the thought that Boost.Threads made it in the C++ standard. Speaking for myself about the quality of Boost.Threads' design itself, I would add that it compares unfavorably (to use an euphemism) with many other threading library interface for C++ or other languages - actually all I know of, including unpublicized ad-hoc threading libraries developed in-house at various companies I've worked with. At any rate, if Boost.Threads is to be standardized, then it would be good to let everybody know because that would imply dissolvation of the group that I have started and that Hans Boehm is de facto leading. Andrei