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

From: Stefano Delli Ponti (stefano.delliponti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-09 10:52:37

From: "William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]>
> > From: "Stefano Delli Ponti" <stefano.delliponti_at_[hidden]>
> > From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> > > "William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > >
> > > > That's a good idea.  So would users prefer new exception types here,
> > > > or should I use the std:: exceptions?
> > >
> > > IMO, it's always safer to use an exception type which provides
> > > more-specific information.
> >
> > Agreed. And we should keep coherence with the filesystem library.
>
> I'm not sure there's any coherence to keep here.  Do you have specific
concerns/thoughts here?

I was thinking about keeping similar design patterns between these two
libraries.
(because they are conceptually similar as they both give a portable view of
operating system functionalities).
So if we use domain specific exception in the filesystem library, the thread
library should follow the same pattern too. The same for the issue of
conditional compilation.

BTW I prefer having the same set of methods, some of them returning default
values for platform without the support for the underline concept.
Sometimes this could not be possible. ACE for instance uses a different
approach.

Sted