In article <p0620021fbd221d0600d5@[192.168.16.235]>, Marshall Clow <marshall@idio.com> wrote:
On Monday 19 July 2004 12:00 pm, Michael Glassford wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
Hi Boosters,
I've tried several times to contact Bill Kempf about moving forward with threads, even leaving him messages on his home answering machine. I've had no reply.
That's too bad.
Anyone for a Boost Road Trip? <g>
Also, I think in a rewrite it would make sense to ditch the MPTasks implementation and assume Mac OS applications will use the pthreads implementation. Unless someone wants to step forward and volunteer to help with that part.
Is the author of the MPTasks implementation (Mac Murrett) unavailable?
Mac is around. I will probably see him this week - I can ask him if that's what people want.
MPTasks are layered on top of pthreads, so it should be fine to replace an MPTasks implementation of boost::threads with a pthreads one without hurting anyone, except for clients of boost::threads that depend on the implementation using MPTasks -- but I don't think that assumption is supported. By the way, does the boost::threads API assume that preemptive scheduling, or would it be possible to use boost::threads as an abstraction over cooperative threads? meeroh -- If this message helped you, consider buying an item from my wish list: <http://web.meeroh.org/wishlist>