Document of relevance

[Kevlin Henney]

In message 
<65953E8166311641A685BDF71D865826058C5C at cacexc12.americas.cpqcorp.net>, 
"Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm at hp.com> writes
>I think the two of us are basically in agreement.  If we can start a
>separate effort to standardize basic thread services, such that
>we can agree on them in a finite amount of time, and they contribute
>more than just the (N+1)st alternative threading interface, that would
>be great.  But the effort to make C++ safe for concurrency shouldn't
>depend on it.

Yes, very much agreed. It is OK for N+1 to depend on N, but not 
vice-versa -- any failure to standardise N+1 should not hinder the 
attempt to standardise N.

>I'm also concerned that we already have many conflicting views on
>thread services represented here.  And Microsoft's position(s) is/are not
>represented here, but probably critical.

Yes. Given Herb's interest, should he or someone else in the Win32/.NET 
threading world be represented?

Kevlin
-- 
____________________________________________________________

   Kevlin Henney                   phone:  +44 117 942 2990
   mailto:kevlin at curbralan.com     mobile: +44 7801 073 508
   http://www.curbralan.com        fax:    +44 870 052 2289
   Curbralan: Consultancy + Training + Development + Review
____________________________________________________________