[repost][threads] final decision on making parts of Boost.Threads header-only
I'm reposting this in the hope of catching the attention of the lib's author, who is at the end of the day the person reponsible of making the decision: Hi, A few weeks ago we had a discussion about the convenience of making part of Boost.Threads, namely mutexes and locks, header-only. Some (including Anthony Williams) supported the idea, others disliked it: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/04/150524.php What the final decision on this issue is? If positive (i.e. favoring the change), can it be expected to be done for Boost 1.40? As a remainder, I've created an associated trac ticket: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2964 Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
joaquin@tid.es writes:
A few weeks ago we had a discussion about the convenience of making part of Boost.Threads, namely mutexes and locks, header-only. Some (including Anthony Williams) supported the idea, others disliked it:
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/04/150524.php
What the final decision on this issue is? If positive (i.e. favoring the change), can it be expected to be done for Boost 1.40?
I haven't yet had a chance to investigate the issues. I will try and do so reasonably soon. Anthony -- Author of C++ Concurrency in Action | http://www.manning.com/williams just::thread C++0x thread library | http://www.stdthread.co.uk Just Software Solutions Ltd | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL, UK. Company No. 5478976
Anthony Williams escribió:
joaquin@tid.es writes:
A few weeks ago we had a discussion about the convenience of making part of Boost.Threads, namely mutexes and locks, header-only. Some (including Anthony Williams) supported the idea, others disliked it:
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/04/150524.php
What the final decision on this issue is? If positive (i.e. favoring the change), can it be expected to be done for Boost 1.40?
I haven't yet had a chance to investigate the issues. I will try and do so reasonably soon.
Great, thanks for taking care of this. Best regards, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Anthony Williams-4 wrote:
joaquin@tid.es writes:
A few weeks ago we had a discussion about the convenience of making part of Boost.Threads, namely mutexes and locks, header-only. Some (including Anthony Williams) supported the idea, others disliked it:
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/04/150524.php
What the final decision on this issue is? If positive (i.e. favoring the change), can it be expected to be done for Boost 1.40?
I haven't yet had a chance to investigate the issues. I will try and do so reasonably soon.
Hi Anthony, any chance the decision (if it's positive) be taken and inplemented by Boost 1.40? As it happens, I have a bunch of changes on Boost.Flyweight waiting for the resolution of this issue. If the decision is negative or is postponed until after 1.40 I'd like to know so as to defer my own changes too. Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-repost--threads--final-decision-on-making-parts-of-Bo... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Joaquin M Lopez Munoz <joaquin@tid.es> writes:
Anthony Williams-4 wrote:
joaquin@tid.es writes:
A few weeks ago we had a discussion about the convenience of making part of Boost.Threads, namely mutexes and locks, header-only. Some (including Anthony Williams) supported the idea, others disliked it:
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/04/150524.php
What the final decision on this issue is? If positive (i.e. favoring the change), can it be expected to be done for Boost 1.40?
I haven't yet had a chance to investigate the issues. I will try and do so reasonably soon.
Hi Anthony, any chance the decision (if it's positive) be taken and inplemented by Boost 1.40? As it happens, I have a bunch of changes on Boost.Flyweight waiting for the resolution of this issue. If the decision is negative or is postponed until after 1.40 I'd like to know so as to defer my own changes too.
I'm snowed under at the moment, and haven't got round to looking at this. It will therefore be deferred to post-1.40. Anthony -- Author of C++ Concurrency in Action | http://www.manning.com/williams just::thread C++0x thread library | http://www.stdthread.co.uk Just Software Solutions Ltd | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL, UK. Company No. 5478976
participants (3)
-
Anthony Williams -
Joaquin M Lopez Munoz -
joaquin＠tid.es