Re: Boost.Threads - Final Design Decisions

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
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 
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
> meaning.

I don't quite follow you here.  Care to elaborate?

Bill Kempf