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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-09 11:13:23

From: "William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]>
[...]
> > Was there ever any consideration/discussion on exposing some form of
thread
> > ID? (appart from the implicit ID in operator==)
>
> Yes... but I'm still trying to determine the requirements for that.  If
the only
> usage for an ID is for comparison, and for diagnostic messages, then all
that's
> missing in the current proposed design is an operator<<(ostream).
Otherwise,
> what's missing is an id() method and an ID type.

I think that a reasonable requirement that we already mentioned several
times is that the ID should be CopyConstructible, Assignable and
LessThanComparable, for use in sets/maps.