Re: Draft of generation 2 thread class

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 16:07:38

--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
> To: <boost_at_y...>
> 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.

OK.  A rather lengthy name for a query, but I can live with that.  
It's probably the best name suggested so far.

Bill Kempf