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

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-24 15:07:53

>>> 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.

Except that it is of benefit to the C++ community if the C and C++ layer are 
compatible beyond just syntax. N2178 defines interoperability semantics that 
go beyond standard pthread.

>> 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.

I would agree if we were talking about 2 substantially different APIs. Sure, 
if you have pthreads and something that's somewhat different, why not. The 
point is that pthread, with a few extensions, is exactly what we need from 
this hidden API.

But let's turn things over: why not use pthread instead of creating another 
API? I think it is clear that using pthreads has a few advantages. What is 
the drawback?

Emil Dotchevski