On 5/25/23 16:12, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
> Um, no. That would break the performance of any number of applications
> that don't need thread safety or have handled it properly themselves.

You just turn it on or off depending on the need, defaulting to off
obviously.

> If you want a language where you can write anything and the system is
> designed to account for every possible contingency, that's fine. But
> that's not C++, nor is it going to be, nor should it become that. What
> you want is a higher-level language.
>
> And I'm pretty sure no language makes *everything* in its standard
> library thread-safe.
>
> This really feels like, "I got bit by a bug someone else put into
> their code, so I'm going to assign responsibility for it to a third
> party who now should help the second party make their code better."
> Getting hit by bugs in other people's code isn't great, but this just
> isn't a reasonable response to that.

I'm just trying to bring C++ to a higher level. But that's fine if you
disagree, but I still disagree also.


Thanks,

-- 
Logo <https://www.fornux.com/>  
*Phil Bouchard*  facebook icon
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/phil-bouchard-5723a910/> 
Founder & CEO
T: (819) 328-4743
E: phil_at_[hidden]| www.fornux.com <http://www.fornux.com>
8 rue de la Baie| Gatineau (Qc), J8T 3H3 Canada
Banner <https://goglobalawards.org/> Le message ci-dessus, ainsi que les
documents l'accompagnant, sont destinés uniquement aux personnes
identifiées et peuvent contenir des informations privilégiées,
confidentielles ou ne pouvant être divulguées. Si vous avez reçu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le détruire.
This communication (and/or the attachments) is intended for named
recipients only and may contain privileged or confidential information
which is not to be disclosed. If you received this communication by
mistake please destroy all copies.