> From: Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At 11:44 AM 1/9/2003, William E. Kempf wrote: > > >As for conditional compilation... the Boost.Filesystem stuff has no > >need for this, while Boost.Threads has a very definate need. > > The reason that Boost.Filesystem doesn't have conditional compilation is > that a design decision was made to limit the library to features which > could be implemented in both POSIX and Windows. > > Otherwise it would have been shot full of optional/conditional features. > > I'm not saying Boost.Threads should take exactly the same approach, but I'd > rather not see a lot of optional/conditional features to support operating > systems other than those two O/S families.
Well, everything that's optional in what I proposed for Boost.Threads (so far) happens to also be optional on POSIX (and by using the same conditional compilation scheme). That's precisely why I said "As for conditional compilation... the Boost.Filesystem stuff has no need for this, while Boost.Threads has a very definate need." The features left to be provided by Boost.Threads (other than barriers, thread pools and read/write mutexes), and that most of it's users are requesting, happen to fall into this "optional" category in POSIX. William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
