From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-24 18:29:47
Emil Dotchevski 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.
> 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
>>> 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.
Maybe so, maybe not. It's simply irrelevant. A hidden API is, well, hidden.
> 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?
That's it's not good C++. We are designing a C++ interface here, and we
want to take advantage of all the nice things C++ has to offer, as
Sohail pointed out. N2184 is better at using all those nice things, IMO.
I don't want to damage that for this compatibility. I just don't think
it worth it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk