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

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-24 19:14:05

>>>> 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.
>
> Maybe so, maybe not. It's simply irrelevant. A hidden API is, well, 
> hidden.

In my mind, it is relevant for the same reasons why C is relevant to C++, 
and C++ is relevant to C. There will always be people in both camps which 
don't care. I care, because I do want to be able to use existing C 
libraries, even though they would have been better implemented in C++.

>> 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.

If you are refering to design differences between N2178 and N2184, I don't 
think they have anything to do with pthreads. These differences express the 
different opinions of the authors.

> 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.

How does using pthreads as a lower level implementation for N2184 "damage" 
it?

Emil Dotchevski