Emil Dotchevski wrote:
But let's turn things over: why not use pthread instead of creating another API? I think it is clear that using pthreads has a few advantages. What is the drawback? 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.
If you are refering to design differences between N2178 and N2184, I don't think they have anything to do with pthreads. These differences express the different opinions of the authors.
I think these differences do have to do with pthreads. Very much to do with pthreads.
N2184 is better at using all those nice things, IMO. I don't want to damage that for this compatibility. I just don't think it worth it.
How does using pthreads as a lower level implementation for N2184 "damage" it?
I didn't mean that using pthreads as a lower level implementation for N2184 would damage anything. I'm sorry if it sounded like it. I meant that standardizing pthreads, as the motivation behind N2178, will damage it. Just standardizing pthreads as a lower level for N2184 won't damage anything, it's just not needed.