RE: [boost] Re: future of boost.threads (implementation)

From: Brock Peabody (brock.peabody_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-12 09:54:58

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of David Abrahams

> > I'd rather be able to put them all in a list than to have to manually
> > register each one.
> 
> ?? it seems equivalent to me.

Maybe I'm too lazy, but

   <exception1, exception2, ... >

is a little more compact than

   register_<exception1>();
   register_<exception2>();
   ...

> > However, given a runtime registration mechanism I guess it shouldn't
> > be too difficult to implement a compile to interface on top and it
> > would probably compile faster than a version implemented completely
> > at compile time.
> 
> Yup.  More importantly, it works even if different libraries register
> separate translators for exceptions in the same class hierarchy,
> without regard to registration order.

That's one thing I guess I'm missing - where would the runtime register
live?  In Daniel Wallin's implementation it the register was a singleton,
but wouldn't you want a separate register for each thread/thread_group?

Brock