Alastair Reid <alastair@reid-consulting-uk.ltd.uk> wrote,
There is only one open question: What to do about "threadsafe"? In the threads discussion, there seemed to be a tendency to not distinguish between "threadsafe" and "safe" after all. Shall we remove "threadsafe" from 1.0? That's what I tend to and will do unless there are strong arguments to retain "threadsafe".
I think it should be removed but there should be a section near the start of the document which lists open issues which would include:
- bindings for other languages - issues involving threads (i.e., whatever it is that threadsafe was intended to solve).
The introduction already mentions bindings for other languages as an open issue. I have added the following paragraph to cover threads: The second major omission from the present report is the definition of the interaction with multithreading in the foreign language and, in particular, the treatment of thread-local state. Work on this problem is not sufficiently mature to be included into Version 1.0 of the report. Cheers, Manuel