From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-05 12:21:50
> Agreed. And I for one would personally prefer to see a
> thread_specific_value instead of thread_specific_ptr in this case.
My favorite spelling is
thread_specific< X > tx;
It can be made to work (I even had implemented it halfway once) but the
problematic case is how to handle dynamically loaded (and unloaded)
libraries with global/static thread_specific<> variables.
The shared_ptr-like deleter functionality is in this case simply spelled
thread_specific< shared_ptr<X> > tpx;
Depending on how the thread_local storage class ends up being specified, we
might still need to implement thread_specific at some point.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk