Re: [boost] Re: Draft of generation 2 thread class

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 15:14:42

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 3:03 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Draft of generation 2 thread class

> --- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > 
> > > Actually, this makes me wonder if the name shouldn't be more 
> along 
> > > the lines of pending_cancellation()?
> > 
> > That was my inclination. Others along those lines:
> > 
> > cancel_posted
> > cancel_pending
> > cancel_requested
> 
> One reason I don't like "pending" is that it seems to indicate that 
> once the thread is cancelled the result will then be false, but that 
> constrains implementation in ways I don't care for.  So I guess I 
> like cancel_posted or cancel_requested better.  Thoughts?

Which one makes cancel seem less like a verb?

I guess "cancellation_requested" is the clearest of all.