Re: Using boost::thread under Visual C++ now OT

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-10 14:36:14

--- In Boost-Users_at_y..., "terekhov" <terekhov_at_d...> wrote:
> --- In Boost-Users_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> > --- In Boost-Users_at_y..., "terekhov" <terekhov_at_d...> wrote:
> > > --- In Boost-Users_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> > > > --- In Boost-Users_at_y..., Jon Kalb <kalb_at_L...> wrote:
> > > > > At 7:57 PM +0000 1/5/02, bill_kempf wrote:
> > > > > ><string.h> is neither deprecated,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Appendix D.5 Standard C library headers [depr.c.headers] 
> leads 
> > me 
> > > > to 
> > > > > believe otherwise.
> > > > 
> > > > Splitting hairs.  ...
> > > 
> > > No. Consider:
> > > 
> > > "These are deprecated features, where deprecated is defined as:
> > >  Normative for the current edition of the Standard, but not
> > >  guaranteed to be part of the Standard in future revisions."
> > 
> > But the features aren't deprecated, only the header is.  In other 
> > words all the features of the deprecated <string.h> will live on 
in 
> > the non-deprecated <cstring>.
> 
> But the code might "suddenly" stop compile (1st: missing 
> header; 2nd: global->std name space change) in X years 
> from now and our build/packaging folks just have no idea 
> what <string.h>/<cstring> is and even if they would know 
> how to fix this "small" problem, they are not supposed/
> allowed to modify my sources... so, do I want to get a 
> call/fix it later? No! ;-)

This thread isn't really worth dragging on.  I'll explain once more 
and then bow out.

It was splitting hairs not because I'd correctly stated things.  I 
hadn't.  The <string.h> and other C headers are deprecated.  It was 
splitting hairs because I'd clearly explained that use of <string.h> 
is still supported and fully standards conforming (deprecated 
features are still conforming, they are only reserved for possible 
removal in the future).  Using <string.h> does not have the same 
issues as using <iostream.h>.

Even though I'd used the wrong language, my very first posting should 
have made the distinction that <string.h> is conforming and 
<iostream.h> isn't quite clear.  The correction posted ignored this 
distinction and only pointed out that the headers were in fact 
deprecated.  This response, though more accurate than my original 
post, was "splitting hairs" in that by ignoring the entire basis of 
the thread it would lead those that didn't understand this to think 
that it was, in fact, non-conforming and unsafe to use <string.h> the 
same as it is for <iostream.h>.

Hopefully everyone understands now and there will be no more need for 
discussion.

Bill Kempf