Date: 2001-08-20 08:01:45
--- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> From: <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > --- 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
> > but I don't agree with what the hidden converse meaning is
> > to imply. Even if there can be a "many to one correspondence
> > 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
I don't quite follow you here. Care to elaborate?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk