Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries (was: Re:Thoughts on Boost v2)

Subject: Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries (was: Re:Thoughts on Boost v2)
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 08:52:21

Niall Douglas wrote:

> Ok, I'll put it the other way round then: it's hard to imagine C 
> standardising a feature without C++ improving/"improving" on it.

C++11 threading predated C11 threading. It didn't 'improve' on anything C. 
C++ atomics also predated and didn't improve on anything C; they were 
designed from the start with the intent of being adoptable by C11 as-is, and 
they largely met this goal.