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

From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-09 11:47:44

> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> Date: 2003/01/09 Thu AM 11:13:23 EST
> To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: Re: [boost] Next revision of boost::thread
> 
> 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.

This misses the need for outputting in diagnostic messages, for one thing.  And all of this can be supplied directly by boost::thread with no need for a boost::thead::id.  I just want to make sure we've not missed some other need, which may mean we DO need a seperate id type.

William E. Kempf
wekempf_at_[hidden]