-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website

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.

You definitely speak for me here. I would not like to see it go in as part of C++0x.

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.

I am much more in favour of a generic decoupled approach such as what Kevlin Henney has suggested (http://www.two-sdg.demon.co.uk/curbralan/papers/accu/MoreC++Threading.p df). This approach lends itself to even more generic abstractions such as asynchronous functions as presented at Accu2005.