Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-20 07:57:07

From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> --- 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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at