From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-06 10:38:35
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Becker" <petebecker_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 8:22 AM
Subject: RE: [boost] Re: Re: Threads & Exceptions
> 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:
>
> class thread
> {
> public:
> thread();
> ~thread();
> void start();
> private:
> virtual void run() = 0;
> };
>
> Derived classes can hold whatever data they need. When the thread
finishes,
> the object's data can be examined to get the result. (Of course, thread
> would have more member functions than I'velisted, in order to be able to
> query the status of the thread)
This design too was considered and rejected. I think the function object
design in Boost.Threads is closer to modern C++ design philosophy then the
artificial inheritance based approach. If you don't agree I'd appreciate
hearing why?
Bill Kempf