Ken Hagan wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Ken Hagan wrote: > > [...] > >> 3a If we allow C<&k> [...] It is then possible to initialise static > >> variables [...] and the results depend on the thread that ran > >> first. Again, we have the same "problem" passing a pointer to > >> a function, so I'm not bothered by this. > > > > 3b We allow C<&k> and make all its statics thread-local as well. The > > "problem" is that, probably, it will result in an equal number of > > somewhat irritated programmers as the 3a above. > > Unless you extend "its statics" to cover all static duration variables > that might be accessed (including those accessed by called functions, > and therefore invisible to the compiler), this is no different from 3a.
Really? Well, Peter's example (with an additional static ptr) would surely work "different from 3a". regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
