-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Martin Wille
Why?
Users of the POSIX API wouldn't want to adjust their existing code for it. (As a side node, there seems to be significant resistance against adding shallow C++ wrappers around POSIX functions in the POSIX C++ Binding Study Group List)
Interesting. Why?
Users of non-POSIX APIs would have to adjust their code, anyway.
Transition to "proper C++ code" (for some sense of that phrase) would require the C++ <thread> API, anyway.
New C++ code could would likely use the C++ <thread> API, anyway.
A fine reason, but why would you want to lump it in with <thread>? Or alternatively, require <thread> to depend on <pthread.h>? Looks like there should be another proposal to add <pthread.h> to the standard... I do like my pthreads btw, but I wouldn't want to restrict the implementation. IMHO of course! Sohail