From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-20 07:57:07
> --- In boost_at_y..., "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov_at_d...> wrote:
[Peter Dimov wrote:]
> > > A noncopyable thread object _is_ a perfect fit
> > > for the thread concept if you can guarantee that
> > > there is one to one correspondence between the actual
> > > threads and the C++ thread objects.
> > agree.
> I only partially agree. I agree with the explicit statement above,
> but I don't agree with what the hidden converse meaning is supposed
> to imply. Even if there can be a "many to one correspondence between
> the actual resource and the C++ objects" a noncopyable design is
> still quite valid. Again, the classic example of std::fstream
> illustrates this. You can easily open the same file with multiple
> C++ object instances.
Bill, I'm not trying to reopen the copyability debate. The issue is
different: whether to let the user manage the lifetime of the thread
objects, or to have the library take care of it. There is no hidden converse
-- 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