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

From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 12:40:36

Peter Dimov wrote:
> 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.

The problem with bringing a C and C++ in the same proposal is that you 
tie them together, while they are not (providing I assume 
interoperability is not an issue, which is probably not agreed by 
everyone). It makes it hard, at least psychologically, at least for me, 
to accept one without the other, which is what I'm after. If this is 
really just a stupid misunderstanding on my part, then that makes things 
easier.

In that specific case of N2178 the C++ part doesn't only come in the 
same paper as the C part, it depends on it, And vice versa, the C part 
is crafted to support this specific C++ part (the extended stuff). They 
are intertwined, which makes it even harder to separate them.