From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-18 09:16:39
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Martin Wille wrote:
>>>I'd welcome naming suggestions, "alternative_thread_specific_ptr"
>>>is a bit unwieldy.
>>>Is there interest to make alternative_thread_specific_ptr<>
>>>a part of Boost.Thread? If so, what would be the procedure
>>>(it is a small addition to an existing library, so I don't
>>>know wether a formal review is required)?
> 'fcourse you know I'm interested. As before, we can always use
> Spirit as the test-bed before the code migrates to its actual destination.
> We need the feature and we need it now ;)
Yes. However, I think this is of general use and not related
to Spirit. In fact, Spirit's code could become a lot simpler
when this is moved to Boost.Thread (the object_with_id stuff
would likely be easier to implement without the header-only
requirement. And the (ugly) code that is used for managing
the grammar-instances would become a lot simpler when we don't
have to hack around thread key limitations (grammar objects
would simply use an alternative_thread_specific_ptr instead
of all the object_with_id stuff, shared_ptr stuff, and ownership
hackery the current code uses (which in turn triggered the
need to workaround several broken compilers)))
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk