From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-24 18:16:24
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Yuval Ronen wrote:
>> 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.
> Sure. We seem to agree that we want a C threading standard and a C++
> threading standard, both based on the pthreads model, compatible with each
> other, supported by Microsoft and the rest of the world.
I guess the key word we are disagreeing about is "compatible" (which is
what Emil's talking about). I assume you want threads created with the
C++ API to be able to be manipulated by the C API. I don't see any major
advantage in that. There's no precedence to such a thing. Do we want
files opened with std::fstream to be read using fgetc()? Was this ever
considered a factor when designing the C++ iostreams? Is there anyone
missing this feature now? I've never heard anyone answering "yes" to any
of those question (as much as that counts).
It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with such C<->C++
interoperability, as long as it doesn't cripple the C++ API. If it
prevents creating the "ideal" C++ interface (which, IMHO, is something
along the lines of Howard's non-copyable thread class), then I'd
consider it a disadvantage.
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