From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 07:41:24
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>>> Here is how I understand your question: does it make sense to formalize a
>>> lower level API behind <thread>.
>> You understand correctly. This is the question I ask, and the answer I
>> give is "no".
>>> If we lived in a world where pthreads did not exist, I wouldn't care much
>>> one way or another; but we don't.
>> The fact that pthreads exist is completely irrelevant. We setup a C++
>> standard, and it should be as good as it gets. The POSIX model is good,
>> so we take it. The POSIX syntax is not so good (for C++, obviously) so
>> we don't take it.
> What follows then, is that you would like existing pthread C libraries to
> continue to be non-portable. I don't see why. I might be blind, but I don't
> see why would that be desirable.
I never said that. If the C standard committee decides to fully adopt
pthreads, I'd be fine with it. And if the C++ standard committee decides
to be backwards compatible with C, and also adopt pthreads, I'd be fine
with that too. I just don't think it should come instead of "the best"
C++ interface, which is what I care about most.
> I haven't checked in depth either. But I'm very interested to know the
>>> In particular we need to examine the answer to 2) and 3) wrt the Windows
>>> <thread> implementation, since on Posix the answer is clear.
>> Disagreement again. Question 1 is not to be overlooked at all. The C++
>> moto is "don't pay for what you don't need". I'll add to that "don't
>> standardize what you don't need". Less is more, and stuff like that.
> While strictly speaking I do not *need* to use existing C libraries in my
> C++ code, I *want* to be able to. And I mean this in general, not just for
> threading libraries.
Ok, so we come again to what seems to be the true heart of the debate.
Do we want interoperability between the C library and the C++ library,
and how much are we willing to pay for it. And it seems we give
different answers to this question.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk