----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Sutton" <andrew.n.sutton@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [boost] GSoC 20010: Boost.Thread towards the C++0x standardproposal

...

Is someone interested in adapting the current Boost.Thread interface to the

...

C++0x stardard proposal?

I think you should add all your ideas to https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/SoC2010

It's a little late, but it's a good idea. Somebody will submit a proposal :)

I have added the idea to https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/SoC2010 Adapt the current Boost.Thread interface to the C++0x standard proposal, for C++98 and C++0x compilers. The main issues are related to some naming changes, the use of the standard chrono library and move semantics. The libraries could use the Boost.Chrono and Boost.Move libraries under the review schedule for C++98 compilers. I really think we need to have this adaptation as soon as posible. If a GSoC student is interested we should see with William how we can have this sonner than later. Best, Vicente

----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan" <mstefanro@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [boost] GSoC 20010: Boost.Thread towards the C++0x standardproposal vicente.botet wrote:

Hi,

Is someone interested in adapting the current Boost.Thread interface to the C++0x stardard proposal?

Best, _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escribá _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Unfortunately, detailed specification and implementations of std::thread won't appear until after TR2 is released, which means that there is not much to be done at this point to write Boost.Thread as a wrapper for std::thread. One can check this proposal for a TR2 threading library if interested: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1883.pdf (important notes on IV.C, Comparison with the Boost.Thread approach) However, I believe that this idea should be dropped at the moment since there isn't sufficient information about the upcoming C++1x threading library. Maybe it will be more appropriate for the next year's GSoC ;) But maybe I'm just wrong and misinformed. Yours faithfully, Stefan _______________________________________________ Hi, I was not refering to the Kevlin Henney proposal, but the one it is already accepted in N3092 http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3092.pdf The chapter include the complete proposal. You can take a look at chapter 30. In http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2661.htm#Threads N2661 - A Foundation to Sleep On you can see some of the changes needed. Anyway, I think that it will be also a good idea for GSoC to implementing the Kevlin Henney proposal, even if the proposal is yet open. I remember that there was an implementation of this before futures had been included in C++0x. Best, Vicente