Tim St. Clair wrote:
I agree w/Graham & Lothar, and it seems rather silly to stifle C++0x on such a debate.
I understand the reasoning behind it, but at the same time one must also weigh the costs of being pedandtic about such things. What if C++0x *did not* have thread support, because the committee could not agree on some ideas? From my perspective, I think that would be a bad decision.
It's not that simple. Lack of boost.threads-level support in C++0x can be fixed with ease by just using boost.threads, and it's possible to add it in a technical report. Lack of standard cancelation mechanism is practically unfixable. You'll be stuck with it for... basically ever. So C++0x that includes proper cancelation support is infinitely more valuable than C++0x that only includes the basic thread support we already have. It's worth a try.