From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-18 15:07:20
Anthony Williams wrote:
> Andrey Semashev <andysem_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> We could just have boost::thread_move become a documented public interface, and
>>> have the type remain in boost::detail (since it *is* an implementation detail).
>> Actually, I used it to move locks, which don't have a move member. I
>> worked around this issue by using defer_lock_t and swap but it looks
>> clumsy and I would surely prefer using move in such cases.
>
> I have removed detail::thread_move(). Instead, I've added boost::move
> overloads for the movable types in boost.thread: thread, unique_lock<>,
> shared_lock<>, upgrade_lock<>. Since these overloads take specific parameter
> types, they shouldn't cause the problems that the unconstrained template
> caused before.
Thanks, nice solution.