Date: 2001-07-02 14:01:51
Author: williamkempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden]) at unix,mime Date: 02/07/01
>No, I don't think it illustrates that at all. At best it
>illustrates that Boost.Threads should have a thread_group concept to
>insure other's don't make this mistake in their own implementations.
> It does not argue for a ref-counted design in any way.
I prefer the thread to the thread_ref design for many of the reasons you have
stated. I think that if we want ref counting or smart_ptrs then these should and
can be added onto the basic concept. If I want the smart_ptr syntax without heap
allocation I can always use the address of operator. which mimics a bitwise copy
of the thread object without affecting its lifetime.
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents
of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If
verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk