-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:10 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Threads, N2178, N2184, et al
Anthony Williams wrote:
For a non-pthreads platform, it might make sense to implement pthreads in terms of the C++ interface, which is implementes in terms of the native API, rather than implement the C++ interface in terms of pthreads, which is then implemented in terms of the native API.
Yes, this is possible, and there are no technical reasons to avoid this implementation approach. There are, how should I put that, ideological reasons to not target non-pthread platforms directly, though. At some point we need to draw a line and say: this is the thread abstraction we're coding against, and could vendors please get along with the program?
I can't imagine such an attitude would be acceptable to those who object (who will eventually have to implement the standard you propose!) I think it goes two ways.