Re: [boost] Boost.Threads, N2178, N2184, et al
Pthread is there, standardized, proven in practice, so why > > not make use of it? In addition, there is a lot of legacy > > pthread code which N2178 makes compatible with future C++ > > <thread> based code. I consider both to be Good Things.> > Some of the most annoying problems in C++ directly stem from being> compatible with C :-/ This statement would be off-topic unless you mean that there are problems in N2178 that stem from the fact that it's based on pthread.
Emil Dotchevski _________________________________________________________________ Take a break and play crossword puzzles - FREE! http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_ wlmemailtaglinemarch07
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Emil Dotchevski
Pthread is there, standardized, proven in practice, so why > > not make use of it? In addition, there is a lot of legacy > > pthread code which N2178 makes compatible with future C++ > > <thread> based code. I consider both to be Good Things.> > Some of the most annoying problems in C++ directly stem from being> compatible with C :-/ This statement would be off-topic unless you mean that there are problems in N2178 that stem from the fact that it's based on pthread.
I'm only saying that compatibility or popularity should not be an overriding concern. Whatever is implemented, people *will* use it.
participants (2)
-
Emil Dotchevski -
Sohail Somani