Re: [boost] Boost.Threads, N2178, N2184, et al

From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-24 10:54:32

Peter Dimov wrote:
> Yuval Ronen wrote:
> 
>> We would have only one C API, and it will work on Windows. The
>> allegedly second C API is hidden and non of us should care about it.
> 
> We must be talking about different things here, since I don't see how anyone 
> could call pthreads alleged or hidden with a straight face. 

Probably there is some misunderstanding, as I failed to understand this 
sentence...

So I'll try to re-phrase. The point I tried to make is that the pthread 
philosophy would be accepted by the C/C++ standard, but the pthread 
exact syntax doesn't have to. The C/C++ standard can adopt a different 
syntax. To implement this syntax, an implementor can opt to first 
implement the pthread syntax, and then use it to implement the standard 
C/C++ syntax, but this is none of our business. We (C/C++ programmers) 
only care of the standard C/C++ syntax and semantics. These semantics 
are the same as the pthreads semantics, only because they are good 
semantics.

I hope I better explained myself this time.