From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-21 17:46:14
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:10 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Threads, N2178, N2184, et al
> Anthony Williams wrote:
> > For a non-pthreads platform, it might make sense to implement
> > pthreads in terms of the C++ interface, which is
> implementes in terms
> > of the native API, rather than implement the C++ interface in terms
> > of pthreads, which is then implemented in terms of the native API.
> Yes, this is possible, and there are no technical reasons to
> avoid this
> implementation approach. There are, how should I put that,
> reasons to not target non-pthread platforms directly, though.
> At some point
> we need to draw a line and say: this is the thread
> abstraction we're coding
> against, and could vendors please get along with the program?
I can't imagine such an attitude would be acceptable to those who object
(who will eventually have to implement the standard you propose!)
I think it goes two ways.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk