From -4210959827221238606 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 114592,1b9fa508fe1b725 X-Google-Attributes: gid114592,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,299b13f3264fa537 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-19 13:41:13 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!devnull From: jcoffin@taeus.com (Jerry Coffin) Newsgroups: alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++,comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: using boost::any Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:41:11 +0000 (UTC) Organization: TAEUS Lines: 47 Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1074548471 11436 10.0.0.1 (19 Jan 2004 21:41:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:41:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from mulga.cs.mu.oz.au ([128.250.1.22]) by news.demon.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aih8w-0002yJ-00 for mail2news@news.news.demon.net; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:41:10 +0000 X-Received: from mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU with ESMTP id i0JLf3mC000237; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:41:03 +1100 (EST) X-Received: (from fjh@localhost) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id i0JLf2YG000224; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:41:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu X-Newsgroups: alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++,comp.std.c++ X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:08:12 EST X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.2 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60-mulga_r1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-mulga_r1 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++:7246 comp.std.c++:891 In article , schnitker@sigma-c.com says... [ ... threads and sockets ] > Interestingly, both were included in the early "things we might want to > include into the standard library" bullet list used by BS to start the > C++0x process. Threads were mentioned as something "we shouldn't make > a built-in feature of the language, but make it a(n optional?) part of > the standard library, maybe with some bit of language support". > > I have not yet seen any indication for a change of mind. Probably not, at least on his part. The real question, however, is whether you can get a large committee to come to a consensus on how to standardize things. In the case of sockets, I think that'll be reasonably easy, for the simple reason that most people do sockets pretty similarly anyway. In the case of threads, I think it'll be substantially more difficult because there are much greater differences in how threads are implemented, and it'll be much more difficult to define an API that abstracts away those differences without losing all hint of control and usefulness. OTOH, there is fairly strong motivation to standardize them -- I (for one) would absolutely _love_ to have the committee prove my guess wrong by managing to do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath for it. >From a higher-level viewpoint, there's also a fairly simple fact: nearly any OS can (and most do) support sockets pretty easily. Supporting threads in a meaningful fashion is a considerably larger project. If a platform doesn't currently include either, adding sockets is likely to be substantially simpler than adding threads. Restricting it to cooperative threads would simplify implementation, but would also render them nearly useless, at least IMO. -- Later, Jerry. The universe is a figment of its own imagination. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]