From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-30 07:04:59
From: "William Kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> >What is impossible about it? join(thread_ref) has exactly the same
> >as boost::thread::join, however it is defined. When boost::thread::join
> >joins, so does thread_ref. When it waits, thread_ref waits too.
> The difference is that boost::thread::join is never called for adopted
I don't see anything that prevents the user to do that.
> You aren't making that distinction for thread_ref, and from a
> usability standpoint it's going to be difficult to do so. That's why I
> suggested using "join" semantics for threads created within the library
> "wait" semantics for threads that are adopted. Not the best solution, but
> fair compromise considering the problems.
No, I don't think that I need to "wait." You are content with undefined
behavior; so am I.
-- 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