On 10/08/2014 11:37 AM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > All credits go to Timo Rothenpieler
Okay. Please add a "Co-Author: " or "Inspired-by: " footer line to give this credit. > I'm not sure about Threads::Interface, it sounds so "generic" or "abstract" > to > me, but this target offers no abstraction of the thread API. All others have > different up- and downsides, so I think I'll stay with Threads::Threads, that > is the one that probably results in the least blame for a badly chosen name. On second thought I agree Threads::Interface is too generic. It exposes an implementation detail in the name. I agree Threads::Threads is the best or now. I suspect other packages will encounter a similar double-name later. Thanks, -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
