From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 12:58:27
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Yuval Ronen wrote:
>> Ok, so we come again to what seems to be the true heart of the debate.
>> Do we want interoperability between the C library and the C++ library,
>> and how much are we willing to pay for it. And it seems we give
>> different answers to this question.
> One reason for the different answers to this question is that you seem to be
> attributing costs where there may be none, without bothering to go into
> specifics so that your claims can be either challenged or acknowledged and
Ok, here's an example. It's about mutexes. Bear in mind that I'm talking
about interface design costs, not performance costs.
If I want my C code to access C++ mutexes I have to expose the
pthread_mutex_t member from the std::mutex class. That's a cost (albeit
a minor one). If I want my C++ code to access C mutexes I have to make a
std::mutex refer to some pthread_mutex_t that is not a member of it.
That's a more major cost.
> If you list specific concerns with the idea of basing <thread> on
> <pthread.h>, we'll be able to stick to technicalities and move away from
> what seems to have become a flame war - and maybe even produce something
> useful as a result of the discussion.
Flame war? God forbid, no. I have the utmost respect for everybody
involved (including myself ;-)). Was I getting personal at any stage? If
so, my deep apologies.
In general I can say that there's nothing wrong with accepting
<pthread.h>, but basing <thread> on it is simply not necessary. Being
the minimalist I am, I think that if it doesn't need to be, it needs to
be not. Do what you have to, nothing more, nothing less.
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