From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-12 13:19:00
From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]>
> At Thursday 2002/09/12 06:56, you wrote:
> >From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
> > > Is thread::join () conceptually const? It seems like the kind of
> > > that shouldn't mutate the thread, simply wait on it.
> >It's also responsible for cleanup, but I guess that's not much of an
> >argument for non-const usage only.
> I find it compelling, unless people want to allow a thread to be join()ed
> more than once.
You can delete only once, but that does not call for non-const pointers.
> In that respect, I consider it almost exactly like
> assigning auto_ptr<>s i.e. the source gets altered.
I don't see the connection here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk