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

From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 07:50:33

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>>> But let's turn things over: why not use pthread instead of creating 
>>> another
>>> API? I think it is clear that using pthreads has a few advantages. What 
>>> is
>>> the drawback?
>> That's it's not good C++. We are designing a C++ interface here, and we
>> want to take advantage of all the nice things C++ has to offer, as
>> Sohail pointed out.
> 
> If you are refering to design differences between N2178 and N2184, I don't 
> think they have anything to do with pthreads. These differences express the 
> different opinions of the authors.

I think these differences do have to do with pthreads. Very much to do 
with pthreads.

>> N2184 is better at using all those nice things, IMO.
>> I don't want to damage that for this compatibility. I just don't think
>> it worth it.
> 
> How does using pthreads as a lower level implementation for N2184 "damage" 
> it?

I didn't mean that using pthreads as a lower level implementation for 
N2184 would damage anything. I'm sorry if it sounded like it. I meant 
that standardizing pthreads, as the motivation behind N2178, will damage 
it. Just standardizing pthreads as a lower level for N2184 won't damage 
anything, it's just not needed.