From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-19 17:14:20
Sohail Somani wrote:
> 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've tried to address some of these questions in N2178, sections III and IV.
Basically, it's easy for the committee to adopt just the pthread.h portion
of N2178 if they like, but I've presented both APIs in the document to
emphasize that they form a coherent whole, are intended to play well
together (in mixed C/C++ code), and are merely different views to the same
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk