Boost logo

Boost :

From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-24 10:54:32

Peter Dimov wrote:
> Yuval Ronen wrote:
>> 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.
> We must be talking about different things here, since I don't see how anyone
> could call pthreads alleged or hidden with a straight face.

Probably there is some misunderstanding, as I failed to understand this

So I'll try to re-phrase. The point I tried to make is that the pthread
philosophy would be accepted by the C/C++ standard, but the pthread
exact syntax doesn't have to. The C/C++ standard can adopt a different
syntax. To implement this syntax, an implementor can opt to first
implement the pthread syntax, and then use it to implement the standard
C/C++ syntax, but this is none of our business. We (C/C++ programmers)
only care of the standard C/C++ syntax and semantics. These semantics
are the same as the pthreads semantics, only because they are good

I hope I better explained myself this time.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at