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

From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-19 17:23:30

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov

> 1. Some C++ committee members would like to see a C/C++ API 
> instead of pure 
> C++. This is important for mixed C/C++ code, but there's also 
> the fact that 
> the C committee is also looking at threading and will likely evaluate 
> whatever is adopted by the C++ standard for eventual inclusion into C.

Ok, that is sensible and understandable. Still wouldn't a separate
"Consider pthread.h for inclusion" be more obvious? 

> 2. We need some platform abstraction layer. The usual 
> approach has been to 
> target Windows and Pthreads. I believe that writing a Pthread 
> implementation 
> for Windows once is a better option; this allows the higher 
> level C++ API to 
> only target a single abstract platform (arguably designed by 
> the best in the 
> field) and is (in my opinion) more maintainable in the long run. 

Yes, it is probably the one that is as close to correct as you can get.
I'm only thinking that you might get push back from certain vendors as
that is who will eventually have to implement the standard, if it were
chosen. Maybe $PLATFORM threads map really inefficiently to pthreads and
the only one who knows best is $VENDOR.