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

From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 15:26:51

Yuval Ronen wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Yuval Ronen wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> One reason for the different answers to this question is that you seem to be 
>> attributing costs where there may be none, without bothering to go into 
>> specifics so that your claims can be either challenged or acknowledged and 
>> justified.
> 
> Ok, here's an example. It's about mutexes. Bear in mind that I'm talking 
> about interface design costs, not performance costs.
> 
> If I want my C code to access C++ mutexes I have to expose the 
> pthread_mutex_t member from the std::mutex class. That's a cost (albeit 
> a minor one). If I want my C++ code to access C mutexes I have to make a 
> std::mutex refer to some pthread_mutex_t that is not a member of it. 
> That's a more major cost.

Rereading this example makes me think it confuses more than explains... 
So to rephrase what I wanted to say in the most concise manner - the 
cost I was talking about is that the interoperability requirement makes 
N2184 impossible. As simple as that. And if I consider N2184 desirable, 
it's a quite a cost.