From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 09:20:35
Yuval Ronen wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Yuval Ronen wrote:
>>> 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.
>> N2184 is closer to pthreads than the C++ portion of N2178 is, FWIW.
>> But don't let that stop you.
> I won't :-)
> Being close to pthreads model is a good thing. Being close to pthreads
> in other aspect depends on the aspect, and can be neither a good
> thing, not a bad thing. I don't know exactly what you mean.
Standardizing or not standardizing a pthread C layer doesn't affect N2184 at
all, because it's designed to map cleanly on it. Ask Howard.
On the other hand, _not_ standardizing a pthread C layer _benefits_ the
thread handle part of N2178, because it doesn't map cleanly to non-extended
pthreads; it actually 'prefers' Windows as a target.
So it's not as simple as you think. Oh, N2178 has a pthread C API, therefore
it must be evil. It has a pthread C API because _someone_ had to do a
concrete proposal for it, to bring up the question of a common C/C++
infrastructure before the committee (and its members who are also on the C
committee). I, personally, don't intend to use <pthread.h> much except for
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk