Re: [boost] [thread] Do we need thread_group now?

Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] Do we need thread_group now?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-14 05:28:25

Le 14/04/12 01:12, Howard Hinnant a écrit :
> On Apr 10, 2012, at 1:32 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>
>>     join_all(threads);
> Is it worth the electrons to turn this into an algorithm?
>
>      std::for_each(threads.begin(), threads.end(),
>                    [](thread&  t) {t.join();});
>
> or even simpler (really I think std::for_each is probably obsolete):
>
>      for (auto&  t : threads)
>          t.join();
>
>
Hi Howard,

you are right for join_all and for c++11 compilers. But in order to make 
the code portable, join_all could help.

In addition, Boost.Thread provides timed join functions and I suspect 
that joining N threads for a given duration is less evident and subject 
to error on the user side.

template <typename TC, typename C, typename D>
bool try_join_all_until(TC & cont, chrono::time_point<C,D> const& tp)
{
   for (auto& t : cont) {
     if (! t.try_join_until(d, tp)) return false;
   }
   return true;
}

Or a better way to do it.

template <typename TC, typename R, typename P>
bool try_join_all_for(TC & cont, chrono::duration<R,P> const& d)
{
   chrono::steady_clock::time_point tp = chrono::steady_clock::now()+d;
   return try_join_all_until(cont, tp);
}

I don't know it adding these simple algorithms would be useful to the 
Boost community if thread_group is deprecated. I could live without 
them, my main concern is to deprecate thread_group.

What do you and others think? Anthony?

Best,
Vicente