From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-18 18:00:48
I like your format; I may adopt it for Boost.Python.
I have just two criticisms:
1. The terms native and foreign could easily be confusing. Normally when we
talk about native facilities in the context of a library, we mean the
underlying facilities provided by the platform. Maybe the categories shoudl
be boost and native instead, or maybe it would be best to avoid "native"
2. disable_cancellations would be much more useful if it specified that
threads are disabled as long as one of these objects exists, as opposed to
restoring the state to the previous setting upon destruction. I can imagine
that there may be uses for disable_cancellation objects in dynamic memory.
Would it affect efficiency much to make this change?
And a question:
Would it make sense to have the thread destructor post a cancellation to the
thread it manages?
----- Original Message -----
From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 5:19 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Draft of generation 2 thread class
> --- In boost_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> > I've uploaded the draft document for the next generation of
> > boost::thread for discussion.
> Ooops. Sorry. The file is at
> Info: http://www.boost.org Send unsubscribe requests to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk