Peter Dimov wrote:
Yuval Ronen wrote:
I never said that. If the C standard committee decides to fully adopt pthreads, I'd be fine with it. And if the C++ standard committee decides to be backwards compatible with C, and also adopt pthreads, I'd be fine with that too. I just don't think it should come instead of "the best" C++ interface, which is what I care about most.
Nobody can disagree with that. The problem in our discussion lies with tying whether one C++ API is better than another with whether the C++ API comes with a C API in the same proposal. This implies that the second C++ API contains design compromises purely because it has a C sibling - guilt by association - without actually stating any.
The problem with bringing a C and C++ in the same proposal is that you tie them together, while they are not (providing I assume interoperability is not an issue, which is probably not agreed by everyone). It makes it hard, at least psychologically, at least for me, to accept one without the other, which is what I'm after. If this is really just a stupid misunderstanding on my part, then that makes things easier. In that specific case of N2178 the C++ part doesn't only come in the same paper as the C part, it depends on it, And vice versa, the C part is crafted to support this specific C++ part (the extended stuff). They are intertwined, which makes it even harder to separate them.