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

From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-09 06:46:16

> From: Alberto Barbati <abarbati_at_[hidden]>
> William E. Kempf wrote:
> > * 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.
> 
> What about using property maps? (I mean the Boost Property Map Library).

I looked at that once before and decided it wasn't a viable option... but for the life of me I can't remember why.  So I'll have to reevaluate it again.
 
> > * Are there issues with throwing std::invalid_argument for both invalid and unsupported values?  Should I define Boost.Threads specific exceptions instead, seperating out the two exception types?
> 
> If you want to use std:: exception classes, for "unsupported" value you 
> could also use std::domain_error. Defining two new classes in the boost 
> namespace is also an option.

That's a good idea.  So would users prefer new exception types here, or should I use the std:: exceptions?
 

William E. Kempf
wekempf_at_[hidden]