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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk