> From: Alberto Barbati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > William E. Kempf wrote: > > * 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. > > What about using property maps? (I mean the Boost Property Map Library).
I looked at that once before and decided it wasn't a viable option... but for the life of me I can't remember why. So I'll have to reevaluate it again. > > * Are there issues with throwing std::invalid_argument for both invalid and >unsupported values? Should I define Boost.Threads specific exceptions instead, >seperating out the two exception types? > > If you want to use std:: exception classes, for "unsupported" value you > could also use std::domain_error. Defining two new classes in the boost > namespace is also an option. That's a good idea. So would users prefer new exception types here, or should I use the std:: exceptions? William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
