From: Ross Smith (ross.s_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-22 11:53:07
Greg Colvin wrote:
> If one has only the non-copyable thread object then one
> is tempted to traffic in raw pointers to that object, with
> either the usual risks of dangling pointers or else the
> requirement to keep the thread object around forever.
Why do you see this as a problem specific to threads? It's exactly the
same for iostreams, and for that matter for anything else that's
non-copyable. Making objects non-copyable when the concept they
represent isn't naturally copyable is generally considered a _good_
thing by most C++ programmers.
As for being "tempted to traffic in raw pointers", surely this is
exactly the sort of problem std::auto_ptr and boost::shared_ptr were
created to solve?
Similarly, why have a special create() function instead of an ordinary
constructor, when constructors work perfectly well for every other
non-copyable entity (iostreams etc.)?
I really don't understand what problem you're seeing with this approach.
-- Ross Smith <ross.s_at_[hidden]> The Internet Group, Auckland, New Zealand ======================================================================== "Unix has always lurked provocatively in the background of the operating system wars, like the Russian Army." -- Neal Stephenson
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk