Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 10:47:53AM +1000, Brian Havard wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:15:54 -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> ...
> > >A problem with this is that it introduces a second way to return a
> > >status from an exiting thread.
> >
> > What's wrong with that? Both ways are already available so they should both
> > have the same type. It's a very simple change.
>
> I would agree, I'd just rather not have two ways of doing the same thing. It
> means we'll have to maintain it in two places, and it'll confuse people
> using our lib.
I suspect that folks would find it unexpected behavior if returning
from the thread start function doesn't do the right thing.
And if it appears to do the right thing yet leaks memory there is
another [perhaps] unexpected behavior.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
