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

From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-23 07:34:23

Peter Dimov wrote:
> Anthony Williams wrote:
> 
>> However, Microsoft do not supply such an interface, so someone has to
>> write one. Writing one might be a good idea, but using it to
>> implement the C++ API, when the C++ API could be better written using
>> the win32 API directly seems a bad plan to me, especially if you
>> could use your C++ API to implement pthreads.
> 
> It depends on what your plan is supposed to achieve. If you want to 
> gradually transition from where we are now to a point where Microsoft does 
> supply a pthread layer, it's not a bad plan at all. If you want something 
> else, it might or might not be, depending on what exactly do you want. 
> Anyway, I see that you are taking this as an argument, so I'll leave you to 
> your opinion. 

Excuse me for being a bit daft here, but why is our plan to make 
Microsoft supply a Windows pthread layer? The reason we all want that 
today, is because there *is no* C/C++ threading standard. Once there is 
such a standard, we wouldn't care anymore about the underlying OS API. 
That's the whole purpose of this (or any) standardization effort, isn't 
it? Do we care about the OS file-system API? No, we don't, because 
there's std::fstream and soon std::tr2::file_system, that's why. Doesn't 
the same apply to threading?