[2003-01-08] William E. Kempf wrote: >I'd appreciate comments on the above design. Specifically I have these questions: > > >* Are there concerns about using conditional compilation and optional portions of the >library, as POSIX does? I believe this is the only way Boost.Threads and the C++ >standard will be able to provide "portable" threading libraries that don't restrict >implementation to a least common denominator approach.
I rather dislike the conditional compilation solution. It makes it rather harder to write portable code as it makes for doing conditional PP code outside of the library. Would it not be preferable to throw some form of "unimplemented"/"unsupported" exception? Another option would be a discovery interface to find out what's supported in the platform. Such a discovery interface could be used with MPL to get the equivalent of PP. >* Should I not nest the thread::attributes class and instead have a >boost::thread_attributes class? I rather like it, I do that in much of my own code :-) >Beyond this, I'd appreciate any other feedback as well. Was there ever any consideration/discussion on exposing some form of thread ID? (appart from the implicit ID in operator==) -- grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 102708583@icq _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost