From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-22 12:51:42
> OK. But that doesn't really address my initial point: implementing call_once> in terms of the POSIX pthread_once is a bit pointless if you need to implement> pthread_once separately anyway. If you don't have pthread_once, I would write> call_once (or, equivalently pthread_once2_np), and implement pthread_once in> terms of that.
Pthread is a C interface that has been implemented on many platforms already and I don't see why you think anyone would implement it over std::thread. It just won't happen.
On the other hand, if a particular platform implements pthread (virtually all do, and we have Windows port of pthread which is a proof of concept at least), implementing the C++ portion of N2178 is a breeze.
Pthread is there, standardized, proven in practice, so why not make use of it? In addition, there is a lot of legacy pthread code which N2178 makes compatible with future C++ <thread> based code. I consider both to be Good Things.
Its tax season, make sure to follow these few simple tips
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk