[cpp-threads] C++ committee meeting in Mont Tremblant

[Ben Hutchings]

Peter A. Buhr wrote:
<snip>
> I fully understand that booting an OS, an application, a thread-library, may
> require some witchcraft. However, a language should try to minimize the need
> for witchcraft or push the witchcraft boundary back as far as possible. I have
> not studied all the ramifications of this issue, but on the surface other
> languages seem to tackle it by creating a module mechanism. Is a module
> mechanism needed for C++? I don't know. But I do know that getting uC++ started
> is very difficult; it seems significantly more difficult than it needs to be
> and the current code is very fragile. I want help from the language to make it
> simpler. I'm sure other library developers feel the same way.

I agree that static initialisation can currently be much more difficult
than it really should be.  However, this problem is not really on-topic
for this list, so can we leave the matter now?

-- 
Ben Hutchings
I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.decadentplace.org.uk/pipermail/cpp-threads/attachments/20051023/57bdfdb3/attachment.pgp