[c++-pthreads] Re: thread-safety definition

[Dave Butenhof]

David Abrahams wrote:

>Dave Butenhof <David.Butenhof at hp.com> writes:
>
>>So whether your argument is relevant depends a lot on where this
>>feature sits. If it's something that "might be nice" but isn't really
>>important for portable applications to have, then yeah, maybe it sits
>>above the bar. I know you have that opinion of 2-phase EH, for
>>example, and as much as I like it I don't strongly disagree. But
>>that's not a foregone conclusion for THIS feature, or any other. And
>>if it's decided to be important then the fact that it makes life hard
>>for someone who wants to ship a braindead implementation should be
>>irrelevant.
>>
>>At least in theory. And, in theory, there's no difference between
>>theory and practice. ;-)
>>    
>>
>My point is that this feature requires approximately the same
>resources as 2-phase EH.  If you're going to mandate one of them, you
>might as well mandate both because all the infrastructure will be
>there.  If one of them is demanding to be mandated, then both are.
>  
>
OK, fine. It sounded to ME like you were trying to say that neither CAN 
be mandated because it might inconvenience some simplistic 
implementations. As Alexander commented, if "raising the bar" is a 
no-no, then just about everything is off-limits.

-- 
/--------------------[ David.Butenhof at hp.com ]--------------------\
| Hewlett-Packard Company       Tru64 UNIX & VMS Thread Architect |
|     My book: http://www.awl.com/cseng/titles/0-201-63392-2/     |
\----[ http://homepage.mac.com/dbutenhof/Threads/Threads.html ]---/