From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-09 08:44:31
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]>
> I totally agree that the procedural semantics should resemble that of
> the C++ standard as much as possible, but the freedom of interpretation
> (i.e., the variety of possible mappings of the mono-threaded semantics
> to the multi-threaded "reality") should be acknowledged. Thus, the
> question whether something "complies" should be open for (a creative)
> discussion.
Again, the problem is that the underlying thread APIs don't specify what
happens in this case, while the C++ standard clearly does. So the choice is
to obey the standard, or invoke what's not only undefined by the standard,
but also by the threading APIs.
Bill Kempf