Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-28 12:39:42

If the thread is going to be detached, why not just create it as detached
from the start, instead of waiting until the destructor? I don't see how
the lifetime of some thread ref object has anything to do with a detached

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Bill Klein wrote:
> My programs tend to use other sync primatives as well and almost never
> join... It seems to me that even in the case of programs where join
> is used, it will tend to be an explicit call at a specific place (i.e.
> not just when the last reference to the thread disapears!). I think
> detach is the proper 'default' that should happen in the destructor if
> join (or detatch) are never called explicitly.
> (Another reason is that join can take a long time [of course] and I
> like to keep destructors quick and simple, but maybe this is not a
> valid reason).
> - Bill
> Info: Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

 Jeremy Siek www:
 Ph.D. Candidate, IU B'ton email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
 Summer Manager, AT&T Research phone: (973) 360-8185

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at