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

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-22 12:51:42

> <snip>
> OK. But that doesn't really address my initial point: implementing call_once> in terms of the POSIX pthread_once is a bit pointless if you need to implement> pthread_once separately anyway. If you don't have pthread_once, I would write> call_once (or, equivalently pthread_once2_np), and implement pthread_once in> terms of that.
Pthread is a C interface that has been implemented on many platforms already and I don't see why you think anyone would implement it over std::thread. It just won't happen.
 
On the other hand, if a particular platform implements pthread (virtually all do, and we have Windows port of pthread which is a proof of concept at least), implementing the C++ portion of N2178 is a breeze.
 
Pthread is there, standardized, proven in practice, so why not make use of it? In addition, there is a lot of legacy pthread code which N2178 makes compatible with future C++ <thread> based code. I consider both to be Good Things.
 
Emil Dotchevski
_________________________________________________________________
It’s tax season, make sure to follow these few simple tips 
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=WLMartagline