Re: [boost] Boost.Threads, N2178, N2184, et al

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-26 15:04:52

Howard Hinnant wrote:

> I was specifically trying to indicate a simplified (and safer)
> interface.

[...]

> Do we want such sharing *implicitly*?  By default?  In the
> *foundation* class?

I don't know if you remember it, but a while ago I tried to convince you 
that an N2178 handle is conceptually a lower level primitive than an N2184 
thread.

This is extremely hard to sell to someone who has the implementations of 
both before his eyes and can plainly see that implementation-wise, 
N2184::thread is closer to pthread_t than N2178::handle.

But if you consider both on an abstract level, it's easier to accept. An 
N2184 thread can be built on top of an N2178::handle by just wrapping it and 
disabling copyability. And an N2178::handle is obviously more powerful and 
more unsafe, as opposed to N2184::thread which is simplified and safer.

I have absolutely no problems with the idea that the default and recommended 
primitive needs to be N2184::thread (minus cancelation_requested plus thread 
safety)... as long as we also deliver a powerful interface for the power 
users.