> From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/01/09 Thu AM 11:13:23 EST > To: "Boost mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re: [boost] Next revision of boost::thread > > From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [...] > > > Was there ever any consideration/discussion on exposing some form of > thread > > > ID? (appart from the implicit ID in operator==) > > > > Yes... but I'm still trying to determine the requirements for that. If > the only > > usage for an ID is for comparison, and for diagnostic messages, then all > that's > > missing in the current proposed design is an operator<<(ostream). > Otherwise, > > what's missing is an id() method and an ID type. > > I think that a reasonable requirement that we already mentioned several > times is that the ID should be CopyConstructible, Assignable and > LessThanComparable, for use in sets/maps.
This misses the need for outputting in diagnostic messages, for one thing. And all of this can be supplied directly by boost::thread with no need for a boost::thead::id. I just want to make sure we've not missed some other need, which may mean we DO need a seperate id type. William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
