> From: Rene Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [2003-01-09] William E. Kempf wrote: > > >> From: Rene Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> The one place I would like to have such a thing it would have to be id(). > >> > >> I have one, very overused, place in my code where I have to iterate on a > >> list of objects, which have thread pointers to find the object given the > >> current thread. It would somewhat cleaner and easier to understand if I > >> could have a std::map<thread::ID,object*> instead. > > > >That doesn't necessarily speak for an ID type in addition to boost::thread. > It only > >adds another requirement that could be met by boost::thread itself. Either > an > >operator<(), knowing that the ordering is arbitrary, or follow the same > route as > >std::type_info and include a before(). Thoughts? > > Having an operator<() would work, but not be as convenient as an ID. In my > simple thread.ID -> object* sample I would have to change it to thread* -> > object* and add the dereference ops accordingly. So I would still prefer the > ID, it's just cleaner and easier to understand.
I don't follow this. First, why are you using a thread* in the first place? Why not just a thread? (Remember that the new thread design is Copyable and Assignable.) Seems the map should just be: typedef std::map<boost::thread, Object*> my_map; which works if we make thread LessThanComparable. > > -- grafik - Don't Assume Anything > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- 102708583@icq > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost > William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
