Re: [boost] [Boost.Thread]:considerremoving catch(...) from thread_proxy

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-31 09:04:37

"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> Would adding a runtime parameter improve the API?
>
> Well that's a good question: I'm just thinking out loud really, the options 
> are choice or no choice, and if choice then compile-time or runtime?  My gut 
> feeling is that compile time parameterisation should be used only when 
> there's some real benefit, and I don't see it in this case - there's no need 
> to make everything a template :-)   No honestly there isn't really :->

Yeah, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, the user can add his own
handler.

> The reason I threw this one in, is that there was a suggestion (from Kevlin 
> Henney's thread proposal if I remember correctly) to decouple thread object 
> creation, from the actual execution of the thread, so that then we can tweak 
> the threads properties with getters/setters before we execute the thread 
> (think thread priority, scheduling policy etc).
>
> Does this make sense or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Usually when I hear "let's make an instance in a special
not-fully-functional state so we can tweak it with getters and setters
before we really bring it to life," little alarm bells go off.  It
complicates the object invariant and injects often-unwanted state into
the program.  How about using the parameter library to set these
things up?

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