From: Moore, Dave (dmoore_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-06 09:20:24
> At 08:48 AM 8/6/2002 -0400, Moore, Dave wrote:
> >I think the idea of parameterizing the return value has merit on the
> >"syntactic sugar" side of things, as the user doesn't have
> to create their
> >own boost::function just so they can extract a return value
> - they can still
> >pass simple function pointers.
>
> Function pointers are a C solution, not a C++ solution.
> Rather than beefing
> up the C solution, I suggest a more object-oriented solution:
> a class with
> a member function that runs in a separate thread. These have
> been around
> for years, dating from long before the days of Java:
I didn't mean to be pushing a C solution... I think the use of
boost::function provides a different means of holding data and the function
pointer compared to the polymorphic solution below. I'm not good at picking
amongst the alternatives in a case like this. Your solution with virtual
void run() seems more familiar to my personal use of C++, but
boost::function is a powerful tool I'm learning to use as well.
I happen to like the fact that boost::function lets me be lazy and specify C
functions directly to my boost::threads, but that's a personal preference
made with the recognition of what boost::function can do for me here.
Both solutions let the user not worry about the rest of the thread class,
which is what's really important here.
Regards,
Dave