Re: [Boost-users] Any update on a form of boost::threads gettinginto the C++ 0x standard?

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-26 14:40:30

Tim St. Clair wrote:
> I agree w/Graham & Lothar, and it seems rather silly to stifle C++0x
> on such a debate.
>
> I understand the reasoning behind it, but at the same time one must
> also weigh the costs of being pedandtic about such things.  What if
> C++0x *did not* have thread support, because the committee could not
> agree on some ideas?  From my perspective, I think that would be a
> bad decision.

It's not that simple.

Lack of boost.threads-level support in C++0x can be fixed with ease by just 
using boost.threads, and it's possible to add it in a technical report.

Lack of standard cancelation mechanism is practically unfixable. You'll be 
stuck with it for... basically ever.

So C++0x that includes proper cancelation support is infinitely more 
valuable than C++0x that only includes the basic thread support we already 
have. It's worth a try.