Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-07 10:26:20

From: "William E. Kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> >
> > The more I think of it, the more I like the thread<void> special case.
> is
> > logical: when you ask for a thread that returns a value, this implies
> > you will join() that thread. When you use thread<void>, you don't care
> about
> > the return value.
> It's not logical (to me at least). Functions that return void can still
> throw exceptions. More over, you'll often still want to join() a
> thread<void>. A so no correlation to nothrow semantics and void returns,
> even when talking about a thread call.

Using thread<void> means that I am not interested in the return value, not
that the thread function returns void (it is not required to do so) or that
I'll never call join. Therefore, (my logic goes) by extension I am not
interested in "exceptional" returns, too.

It might be a stretch.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at