Re: [boost] Re: A new boost::thread implementation?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-10 11:39:08

"William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> writes:

>>  From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> Date: 2003/02/10
>> Mon AM 11:15:31 EST To: Boost mailing list <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> Subject: Re: [boost] Re: A new boost::thread implementation?
>> 
>> "William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 
>> > Actually, there's another minor issue as well.  The user can call
>> > operator() and then let the async_call go out of scope with out
>> > ever calling result().  Mayhem would ensue.  The two options for
>> > dealing with this are to either block in the destructor until the
>> > call has completed or to simply document this as undefined
>> > behavior.
>>  If you want async_call to be copyable you'd need to have a
>> handle-body idiom anyway, and something associated with the thread
>> could be used to keep the body alive.
>
> True enough.  The code provided by Mr. Dimov wasn't copyable, however.
> Is it important enough to allow copying to be worth the issues
> involved with dynamic memory usage here (i.e. a point of failure in
> the constructor)?  I think it probably is, I just want to see how
> others feel.

I don't have an opinion.  The answer may depend on the relative
expense of acquiring the asynchronous executor resource (thread).

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com