From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-12 13:49:18
At Thursday 2002/09/12 11:19, you wrote:
>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.
when you assign an auto_ptr<> to another.... e.g.
x = y;
"ownership" of what is pointed to x, and y is altered (canNOT be const)
I was suggesting that the idea of being join()ing a thread should happen
only once... i.e. that the thread is "gone" after the join(). I found that
particularly important if results were being transferred (kinda like
auto_ptr<> the "source" doesn't have it any more)
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk