From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-06 12:16:32
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Becker" <petebecker_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>; <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Re: Threads & Exceptions
> At 10:38 AM 8/6/2002 -0500, William E. Kempf wrote:
> >This design too was considered and rejected. I think the function object
> >design in Boost.Threads is closer to modern C++ design philosophy then
> >artificial inheritance based approach. If you don't agree I'd appreciate
> >hearing why?
> There is nothing artificial about this use of inheritance. I'm really not
> interested in participating in a discussion that consists of slinging
> around loaded terms devoid of technical content.
Sorry, that was not my intent. I'll try to watch the loaded wording a bit
better. I'm not sure how to restate what my intent was here, but I'll try.
By artificial, I meant that this design clouds the two seperate entities of
the thread handle and the thread of execution. The actual thread here
exists only for a subset of the lifetime of the thread object, which I find
confuses the design. To me it's more natural for the data to be seperate
from the thread handle, even in an OO design (which I contend Boost.Threads
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk