Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 13:20:42

Yuval Ronen wrote:
> 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.

True. But as I said, someone had to do it (in my opinion). That is, make the
assumption that the committee would like to accept an unified C/C++ proposal
and proceed based on that. I do realize that this leads to a psychological
penalty for the C++ part of N2178. My aim was to make sure that it doesn't
lead to a design or efficiency penalty.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at