Subj : Re: [RFC] Boost.Threads on its way to C++0x To : comp.programming.threads From : Randy Howard Date : Thu Apr 28 2005 12:20 am In article <38cbb$42701452$526c051b$27609@nf1.news-service.com>, brok@rubikon.pl says... > Randy Howard wrote: > > In article , pdimov@gmail.com > > says... > > > >>>Anyway, this is all being done because Microsoft won't implement > >>>Posix threads on windows, or Posix won't define a C++ api for > >>>pthreads, or both? > >> > >>A little bit of both, I think, plus the fact that the initial development of > >>Boost.Threads consisted mainly of reinventing the Posix wheels badly. But > >>Microsoft lacking pthread.h is probably the primary cause of this as well. > > > > > > So? Microsoft can either adhere to the new standard, or not. Why > > should the entire development community suffer in the future because > > of what MS does or does not support today? > > > I do not see how allowing C++ programmer to use threads in portable > manner can hurt anyone. I don't either. I wish a C programmer could do the same thing and still be writing "standard C". Unfortunately, that's not the case today. > Phtreads in not C++ library, No, it's a library API which could be used from just about any language that can link with it. C++ programmers can in fact use it if they like right now. > and if you believe that you can write one, go on and submit proposal > to the C++ committee. I didn't say I wanted to write some new library. I'm not sure why you are being argumentative, I simply asked why a standards body would ignore a widely used solution just because Microsoft does not currently include a header file. When is the last time a header was included to support a standard that had not been approved yet? -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig .