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
> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk