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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-10 18:36:52

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> I can. On the other hand, I can implement the thread primitives and
> optional, too. The point is that if, while building a high-level interface
> implementation, we discover an useful low-level primitive that offers
> greater expressive power (if less safety), we should consider exposing it,
> too, unless there are strong reasons not to.

And we should also consider NOT exposing it, unless there are strong
reasons to do so ;-).  I'm all for considering everything, but let's
be careful not to generalize this too much, too early.  If we discover
that people really need fine-grained control over the way their
async_calls work, we can go with a policy-based design ;-)

>> 2. Is that much different (or more valuable than)
>>
>>       R f() -> { construct(), R result() }
>>
>>    which is what I was suggested?
>
> I don't know. Post the code. ;-) 

done.

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