From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,4215feeab2a8154a X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model? Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <7q2385104kihs87d79p8kfphuoki6r01vq@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.70.240.233 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1250034804 3011 127.0.0.1 (11 Aug 2009 23:53:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:53:24 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=75.70.240.233; posting-account=fZH-XgkAAADP-Rf8L8ppyFIdKUfh90k4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) AutoPager/0.5.2.2 (http://www.teesoft.info/),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7686 Date: 2009-08-11T16:53:24-07:00 List-Id: I did follow the threading issues early on. During the early discussions the decision was made to provide a standard threading library rather than adding any new reserved words to the language. This approach provided minimum impact on existing software while providing significant threading support. My objection, which was not considered significant, was that the compilers have less information for checking the correctness of library calls than they do of checking the syntax of reserved words. Jim Rogers