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

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-22 13:12:19

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> Anthony Williams wrote:
>> [...]
>>> typedef once_flag pthread_once_t;
>>> int pthread_once(pthread_once_t* once_control,void(*init_routine)())
>>> {
>>>     std::call_once(*once_control,init_routine);
>>>     return 0;
>>> }
>>
>> Right, the only problem is that folks like Drepper of Red Hat would
>> rather commit suicide than accept the notion of pthread.h
>> implementable in terms of <thread>. See the comedy at posix-c++-sg.
>
> This is not a good idea for maintenance reasons, because it still leaves us 
> with two separate implementations, one for POSIX, one for pthreads-over-C++ 
> (which is currently a synonym for Windows.) 

That's a non-starter of an argument. The alternative is C++-over-POSIX and
C++-over-POSIX-over-xxx for non-pthreads platforms, which is still two
implementations.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Just Software Solutions Ltd - http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL