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

From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-19 17:04:29

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Martin Wille

> Why?
> 
> Users of the POSIX API wouldn't want to adjust their existing 
> code for 
> it. (As a side node, there seems to be significant resistance against 
> adding shallow C++ wrappers around POSIX functions in the POSIX C++ 
> Binding Study Group List)

Interesting. Why?

> Users of non-POSIX APIs would have to adjust their code, anyway.
> 
> Transition to "proper C++ code" (for some sense of that phrase) would 
> require the C++ <thread> API, anyway.
> 
> New C++ code could would likely use the C++ <thread> API, anyway.

A fine reason, but why would you want to lump it in with <thread>? Or
alternatively, require <thread> to depend on <pthread.h>? Looks like
there should be another proposal to add <pthread.h> to the standard... I
do like my pthreads btw, but I wouldn't want to restrict the
implementation.

IMHO of course!

Sohail