From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-21 14:25:03
> --- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> > From: "William Kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > > (1) I totally don't follow this. The term "surrogate" doesn't
> seem to
> > > apply, so I don't know what you mean by that. In any event, with
> > > std::fstream "there can be many such objects" and they are "first
> > > citizens". I truly don't see any problem here.
> > The default-constructed thread objects are more constrained in their
> > functionality than the "primary" thread object - by which I mean
> the object
> > that started the thread.
> Ahhh. Well, the only real restriction is that you can't call join.
> I'm not sure that this is that big of an issue.
Well; you're in thread A. How do you tell thread B: "Join me, please"? I
don't know whether this qualifies as big or not.
> > The only thing you can do with a default-constructed thread object
> > compare it for (in)equality.
> Currently. As we add functionality to boost::thread, such as being
> able to change it's priority, this will no longer be the case. The
> only restriction is calls to join.
You're thinking in terms of an expanded design that I know nothing about; I
talk about the current semantics, where the only thing you can do is join. I
agree that in a future design where 'join' is only a fraction of the
supported functionality the default-constructed thread objects are no longer
"second class citizens."
-- 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