Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andreas Huber (ah2003_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-15 16:20:20

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Andreas Huber wrote:
>> Yes, but the user still has to know/remember that (s)he has to call
>> join() in the derived class destructor and start() in the
>> constructor. I think the boost::thread design is much less
>> error-prone here.
> I don't think it's too much to expect a user to know how to properly
> use
> a class, provided proper use is documented, but this is really a
> matter
> of opinion. I mentioned the design as one that I favor, and I'll
> continue to use it whether it becomes a part of Boost or not :)

Which is just fine for me :). Surely, you and others preferring an
inheritance-based thread design have very valid reasons to do so. In a
real-world project environment non-technical reasons are often more
important than technical ones. I just don't think the same is true for boost
libraries. Especially if the library in question is bound to become very
popular, it's a bad idea to settle for anything less than the simplest,
least error-prone and most obvious interface possible...



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at