Peter Dimov wrote:
Yuval Ronen wrote:
We would have only one C API, and it will work on Windows. The allegedly second C API is hidden and non of us should care about it.
We must be talking about different things here, since I don't see how anyone could call pthreads alleged or hidden with a straight face.
Probably there is some misunderstanding, as I failed to understand this sentence... So I'll try to re-phrase. The point I tried to make is that the pthread philosophy would be accepted by the C/C++ standard, but the pthread exact syntax doesn't have to. The C/C++ standard can adopt a different syntax. To implement this syntax, an implementor can opt to first implement the pthread syntax, and then use it to implement the standard C/C++ syntax, but this is none of our business. We (C/C++ programmers) only care of the standard C/C++ syntax and semantics. These semantics are the same as the pthreads semantics, only because they are good semantics. I hope I better explained myself this time.