From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-20 12:31:17
Anthony Williams wrote:
> On rereading N2178, I just spotted that your call_once has the flag
> as the first parameter, and allows additional arguments to be passed
> to the once_function. I like that, and might change my library to
I don't see call_once in jss_thread.zip, by the way; maybe you forgot to put
it into the archive?
> My focus is primarily on the C++ interface. I am concerned about the
> cost for implementors of requiring pthreads as the C api, but am not
> opposed in principle. Certainly, I think a boost.pthread-win32
> library would be of benefit.
I'm very much interested in whether you support refactoring Boost.Threads to
use a Boost.Pthread layer, and if so, whether you'd like to work on it. I
see that you already have most of the underlying pieces in place; even your
thread_data can expose an N2178 pthread.h extension interface without much
> As for copyable handles, my implementation is deliberately not
> copyable, and it would be trivial to convert it to be a copyable
> handle rather than just movable. If the consensus of opinion of the
> committee is for copyable handles, I'm happy to go with that for
If we agree to pursue the pthread.h part of N2178 as part of Boost.Threads,
a copyable handle can be added later without much effort and without
interfering with the rest of the library.
> I find it strange to template the condition var on the mutex, and then
> (separately) template the wait function on the lock type. I've opted
> for templating the whole condvar on the lock type, as it seems more
> coherent to me.
I actually "stole" this idea from Howard IIRC. His early version was
templated on the lock. A later iteration was templated on the mutex. Both
work for me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk