Re: [boost] Re: future of boost.threads

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-10 19:11:48

Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
> At Tuesday 2004-02-10 08:45, you wrote:
>> David Bergman wrote:
>>>
>>> There seem to be two schools here: (1) the Standardists, striving to
>>> follow The Standard verbatim, and (2) the Pragmatics, trying to see
>>> how different mechanisms would affect their daily struggles with
>>> real problems.
>>
>> Sorry, that's nonsense.
>
> with exactly (no more, no less) respect than you showed David
>
> Peter, I think you simply "don't get it".

Yes, it does seem so. I honestly don't get it, "it" being the relationship
between the distinction between Standardists and Pragmatics and the thread
discussion.

>>  Nobody in the world is (1), and the only reason to
>> bring up this hypothetical school division is as an excuse to write
>> broken code that happens to work today.
>
> your definition of "broken" apparently doesn't match mine.  I wish to
> be
> able to view a thread invocation as a delayed (possibly remote)
> procedure call, which _may_ return something (including an exception).
> Insistance that I cannot do that seems pointlessly pedantic?  You
> haven't shown _why_ it's pointless.

I don't need to. I haven't claimed that it's pointless, "it" being the
ability to view the thread invocation as a delayed procedure call.

> I say it's a useful technique, you say it's rubbish.

No, I did not.

> Adopting what I want in this instance allows me to work and does
> _nothing_
> to what you do.
> Adopting your point of view, prevents me from implementing some
> solutions.

I don't think that my point of view is what you think it is.