Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads - thread_desc concept

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-27 12:50:22

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:
> implementations.  In order to have a "procedural interface" we have
> to either make the thread_desc a structure with all public data or
> make every method a friend.  Both of these are generally considered
> poor design choices for OO systems.

Really? The graph library uses only friend functions, and I didn't hear
anyone complain about that. In fact, free (friend) functions have several
advantages. Friends retain all the encapsulation, and allow for adapting
third-party classes to the interface without changing the third-party
code. You may argue that friends are broken on many compilers... true, but
that's what #ifdef's are for... it should not change our design. Using
friends may be looked down upon by traditional OO, but haven't we moved
beyond OO?

Cheers,
Jeremy

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jeremy Siek                        www: http://www.lsc.nd.edu/~jsiek/
 Ph.D. Candidate, IU B'ton          email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
 Summer Manager, AT&T Research      phone: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------------------------