Re: [boost] Re: What I Hate About How We Abstract System Dependence

From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-08 16:22:12

In-Reply-To: <loom.20050308T013051-569_at_[hidden]>
belvis_at_[hidden] (Bob Bell) wrote (abridged):
> Another possibility is to provide another level of indirection. For
> example, boost::thread can have an accessor which returns a
> boost::platform_thread, which has the OS thread ID, plus member 
> functions which mimic OS operations not reflected in the portable
> (boost::thread) API. The advantage of this approach is that
> boost::platform_thread member functions may be able to preserve
> invariants that otherwise might be broken if the user was allowed
> to manipulate the underlying OS thread ID itself, and if the coverage
> of the boost::platform_thread member functions is large enough, it
> might not even be necessary to expose the OS thread ID at all.

I don't think the coverage could never be large enough. We should always 
allow for 3rd parties which are not boost-aware, and which need to be 
passed low-level OS handles.

-- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK