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

From: John Max Skaller (skaller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-29 22:32:42

Greg Colvin wrote:
> 
> From: John Max Skaller <skaller_at_[hidden]>
> > williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:
> >
> > > Considering all of the discussion so far, I think this slightly
> > > modified interface is the best design so far:
> > >
> > >     class thread : boost::noncopyable
> > >     {
> >
> > What? only one kind of thread allowed?
> > Shouldn't this class use pure virtual methods?
> 
> I think the answer is that this class is not intended as
> a base class, which is one reason some of us prefer that
> it be just a namespace.

        I can see that, but the question is: what happens
if there is more than one type of thread, as on Solaris?
Should the design be able to cope with that?
If not, how does the vendor choose, and wouldn't clients
be forced to roll their own if they wanted the other kind?

[Perhaps I'm confused, I'm just questioning everything:
better now than in committee, or, worse, after Standardisation:
I really want this thing to proceed: I consider the lack
of thread support a serious deficiency]

-- 
John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller_at_[hidden] 
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
New generation programming language Felix  http://felix.sourceforge.net
Literate Programming tool Interscript     
http://Interscript.sourceforge.net