From: Moore, Paul (paul.moore_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-17 09:56:03
From: William Kempf [mailto:sirwillard_at_[hidden]]
> I understand the sentiment, and it's consistent with historical
> precedent, but IMHO threads are not something that any language can
> ignore any more.
> So I don't think
> that threads fall in a category of "beyond the scope of future C++
> standards", and strongly feel that in fact, the C++ language _must_
> consider the concept if it is to survive as a language.
Oh, I agree entirely. In the case of threads, I was arguing for minimality,
not exclusion. With iostreams, there was already the concept of a standard
IO model (stdio from C), and iostreams merely built a new (C++ based) model
on top of the concepts. With threads, there isn't a standard model (no,
pthreads is not universally known, let alone accepted), so we are building
both a concept and a model.
It's worth remembering that even with stdio/iostreams, IO code is still
highly non-portable. And that after how many years of stdio?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk