Re: [boost] Comments about N2320

From: Johan Nilsson (r.johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-29 03:27:15

Yuval Ronen wrote:
> Hi,
> After reading most of N2320, I have a few comments:
>

[snip]

>
> * Thread cancellation is new, and
> disable_cancellation/restore_cancellation are even newer. They are new
> for C++ programmers, and maybe new for *all* programmers (I never
> heard
> of a language with them). I'm not sure if it's a good idea to
> standardize them before we get some real-life experience with thread
> cancellation.

What about POSIX Threads (not a language, but a platform)? I don't know to 
what extent cancellation is used "out in the wild", but the need for a 
standardized way to cancel a thread is certainly a reality.

>
> * Time issues. To my eyes, it looks not pretty trying to get threading
> with time issues standardized before we have std::date_time. Making
> it a templated type not because we want genericity, but because we
> don't have
> the type we want yet, makes it look coerced. I think it's best to drop
> the time-related stuff, and add it properly together with date_time.
> Using the timed version of thread::join(), mutex::lock() and
> condition::wait() are very rare, and I think (hope) they can be
> implemented externally using native_handle().

I can only speak for myself, but I feel that the timed versions of 
mutex/condition::wait are definitely used often enough to warrant their 
inclusion.

/ Johan