Re: [boost] Comments about N2320

From: Michael Caisse (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-01 18:31:08

Peter Dimov wrote:
> There are two main reasons, one, because a significant portion of the 
> community doesn't want or need such branching, and two, because the C 
> runtime library is (both de facto and de jure) part of C++. So a "C++ 
> cancelation" that doesn't cancel the C blocking waits would be severely 
> limited in practice, unless the C++ library is revamped to offer pure C++ 
> equivalents to all blocking C functions. (It is still much better than 
> nothing, though.) 
>
>   
Peter -

Thank you for taking time to answer what I'm sure was a "silly" question.

michael