"William E. Kempf" wrote: [...] > > There is some chance you might talk me into accepting two flavors of > > threading for the Standard - full threads and threads-lite in effect. > > But picking and choosing between four or five optional thread features > > leaves me cold. > > I can understand that, but my hands are somewhat tied by POSIX, whose > standards bodies took the opposite stance on this issue.
It seems to me that you're missing the purpose/role of The Single UNIX Specification and various "Product Standards" within the UNIX branding/ certification program of The Open Group consortium: e.g. UNIX 95, UNIX 98 Workstation, UNIX 98 Server, etc.]. Well, < note that this is rather old SUSv2-stuff. The current version is SUSv3[/TC1](*) > http://www.unix-systems.org/version2/whatsnew/threadspaper.pdf (Threads and the Single UNIX(R) Specification, Version 2) <quote> For conformance to the Single UNIX Specification, Version 2, the threads options are split so that non-realtime functionality is mandatory, and realtime functionality is grouped into a single option: the Realtime Threads Feature Group. </quote> regards, alexander. (*) http://www.unix-systems.org http://www.opengroup.org/austin _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
