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

From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-24 07:00:23

Peter Dimov wrote:
> Yuval Ronen wrote:
>> Of course we want Microsoft to offer this threading model to C
>> programmers, but it's the job of the C standard committee to define the
>> exact syntax. This standard C syntax might as well be the exact POSIX
>> syntax, no problem by me. But it doesn't really matter one way or the
>> other, as long as the C syntax accepted is a good one.
> 
> Doesn't this answer your original question, which was "why do we want 
> Microsoft to ship a pthread layer"? They would have to, either way.

Microsoft might as well have to implement a pthread layer, but that's 
non of our business, as long as they comply with the C/C++ standard.

> The only 
> question left is whether we want two incompatible C APIs to the same 
> underlying model, only one of which works on Windows, or just one. It seems 
> to me that it is in our best interest to want the latter. 

We would have only one C API, and it will work on Windows. The allegedly 
second C API is hidden and non of us should care about it.