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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-22 13:33:56

Anthony Williams wrote:
> "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.

I'm not arguing. Anyway, it's still two implementations, but now they are 
independent and don't need to be kept in sync. Maintenance reasons, as I 
said.