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

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-27 13:25:56

From: Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> At 01:08 PM 6/27/2001, Greg Colvin wrote:
>  >For the reasons Peter and I have laid out I still prefer:
>  >
>  >    namespace thread {
>  >
>  >        struct ref {
>  >
>  >           // ref is copyable, and all copies compare ==
>  >           ref(const ref& other);
>  >           ref& operator=(const ref& other);
>  >           bool operator==(const ref& other) const;
>  >           bool operator!=(const ref& other) const;
>  >
>  >           // To allow us to not need current(), at least for
>  >           // comparison.  Not needed if we have current().
>  >           bool is_current() const;
>  >
>  >           bool is_alive() const;
>  >
>  >           // Waits for the thread to finish
>  >           void join();
>  >        };
>  >
>  >        // maybe don't need this if we have ref::is_current()
>  >        ref current() const;
>  >
>  >        ref create(detail::threadproc proc); // Starts the thread
>  >
>  >        void sleep(const xtime& xt);
>  >        void yield();
>  >    };
> 
> What about detach()?

Unecessary, I think, as there is no thread object to detach
from, and redundant with ~thread::ref().

> What about ~ref()?
> 
> Was the omission of these deliberate?  (Just curious:-)

No, I just assumed it would do the right thing.

Also, some of us seem to dislike member functions enough that
we should have 

    thread:is_alive(const thread::ref&);
    thread:join(const thread::ref&);

instead of the members.  I have no strong opinion on this
myself.  I also don't care much if ref is called id or
whatever, but somehow I think ref goes better with the
member functions, and id with the free functions.

What is important to me is having a safely copyable handle
for managing a thread, as I think that trying to roll my
own with shared_ptr will be perilous and more difficult
and less efficient than necessary.