From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-26 15:38:40
On Mar 26, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> I don't know if you remember it, but a while ago I tried to convince
> that an N2178 handle is conceptually a lower level primitive than an
Yeah, it was burned into my brain. :-) Just kidding around, really! :-)
> This is extremely hard to sell to someone who has the
> implementations of
> both before his eyes and can plainly see that implementation-wise,
> N2184::thread is closer to pthread_t than N2178::handle.
> But if you consider both on an abstract level, it's easier to
> accept. An
> N2184 thread can be built on top of an N2178::handle by just
> wrapping it and
> disabling copyability. And an N2178::handle is obviously more
> powerful and
> more unsafe, as opposed to N2184::thread which is simplified and
This just leaves me with the feeling of implementing unique_ptr in
terms of shared_ptr, at least on a pthreads platform. I understand
that on a Windows platform one can get the opposite feeling.
When it comes right down to it, we have two valid and reasonable OS
threading models before us:
Which one do we model with std::thread (or std::thread::handle)?
N2184 chose pthreads and N2178 chose Windows (to be fair, N2178 chose
Windows with some pthreads mixed in).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk