Re: [boost] Next revision of boost::thread

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-08 15:38:07

[2003-01-08] William E. Kempf wrote:

>I'd appreciate comments on the above design.  Specifically I have these
questions:
>
>
>* Are there concerns about using conditional compilation and optional
portions of the 
>library, as POSIX does?  I believe this is the only way Boost.Threads and
the C++ 
>standard will be able to provide "portable" threading libraries that don't
restrict 
>implementation to a least common denominator approach.

I rather dislike the conditional compilation solution. It makes it rather
harder to write portable code as it makes for doing conditional PP code
outside of the library. Would it not be preferable to throw some form of
"unimplemented"/"unsupported" exception? Another option would be a discovery
interface to find out what's supported in the platform. Such a discovery
interface could be used with MPL to get the equivalent of PP.

>* Should I not nest the thread::attributes class and instead have a 
>boost::thread_attributes class?

I rather like it, I do that in much of my own code :-)

>Beyond this, I'd appreciate any other feedback as well.

Was there ever any consideration/discussion on exposing some form of thread
ID? (appart from the implicit ID in operator==)

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq