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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 10:46:50

Yuval Ronen wrote:

> 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.

Nobody can disagree with that. The problem in our discussion lies with tying 
whether one C++ API is better than another with whether the C++ API comes 
with a C API in the same proposal. This implies that the second C++ API 
contains design compromises purely because it has a C sibling - guilt by 
association - without actually stating any.

Another interesting question is whether "the best" C++ interface is 
independent of the existence of a standard pthreads API. The answer very 
much depends on the perspective of whoever determines what is "best" for 
him, of course.