From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-02 13:45:44
> No, it really doesn't. Remember, the original pattern didn't use a
> thread group, it used an array of std::auto_ptrs, and it's ease of
> use was nearly identical.
An array of auto_ptrs isn't as flexible as a thread_group. It's fixed size
and can't have threads dynamically added on the fly.
> > You didn't say anything about sharing a thread_group between
> threads, so a
> > non-synchronized thread_group still matches the ad-hoc
> specification given
> > in your 'void foo()' example.
> True... what I had in mind and what was obvious from the posts are
> two different things.
Implementing a thread-safe thread_group is a completely different can of
> > And explicit management is error prone, as you have demonstrated.
> Explicit management isn't error prone. Manual management is. The
> std::auto_ptr<> uses explicit management, and errors don't occur
> because of this.
So why didn't you use "explicit management" in creating the thread_group,
but opted for "manual management" instead?
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk