Yuval Ronen wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Yuval Ronen wrote:
That's it's not good C++. We are designing a C++ interface here, and we want to take advantage of all the nice things C++ has to offer, as Sohail pointed out. N2184 is better at using all those nice things, IMO.
N2184 is closer to pthreads than the C++ portion of N2178 is, FWIW. But don't let that stop you.
I won't :-) Being close to pthreads model is a good thing. Being close to pthreads in other aspect depends on the aspect, and can be neither a good thing, not a bad thing. I don't know exactly what you mean.
Standardizing or not standardizing a pthread C layer doesn't affect N2184 at all, because it's designed to map cleanly on it. Ask Howard. On the other hand, _not_ standardizing a pthread C layer _benefits_ the thread handle part of N2178, because it doesn't map cleanly to non-extended pthreads; it actually 'prefers' Windows as a target. So it's not as simple as you think. Oh, N2178 has a pthread C API, therefore it must be evil. It has a pthread C API because _someone_ had to do a concrete proposal for it, to bring up the question of a common C/C++ infrastructure before the committee (and its members who are also on the C committee). I, personally, don't intend to use <pthread.h> much except for PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER. :-)