Subj : Re: [RFC] Boost.Threads on its way to C++0x To : comp.programming.threads From : Randy Howard Date : Fri Apr 29 2005 11:42 pm In article , brok@rubikon.pl says... > Randy Howard wrote: > > brok@rubikon.pl says... > >>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? > > your assumoption that standard committee does not standarize posix > threads in C++ "just because Microsoft" is ridiculous. It's not my assumption, I wrote that in response to someone else claiming it. Look upthread if you are all worked up over it. > Did it occured to > you that, in order to standarize something, proposal has to be written > and championed in the committee meetings? I'm aware. I have participated in standards bodies myself, although not for C++. -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory, just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks .