Re: mutex_traits<>

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-31 12:35:51

--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
> 
> 
> > I can understand this (and agree with it).  But is it really so
> > difficult to use a traits class such as the one I posted for the
> > advanced users?
> 
> Every extra bit of complication makes the library harder to work 
with. It
> really irks me when I try to use a library which seems to be making 
me jump
> through unneccessary hoops. The same goes for just about anything 
with an
> interface. My toaster oven has a timer but no lever you can just 
press if
> you want toast and you already have the doneness set. Pisses me 
off. I think
> it comes from being an engineer. Of course, maybe you can afford to 
alienate
> that market segment... ;-)

*laughs*  Of course I can't.  But I'm still not sure I agree with 
what your saying.  Even as an "advanced" user 99% of what I need to 
do exists in the simple Mutex interface.  Only that last 1% requires 
using the mutex_traits<>, which I don't find to be much of a burden 
(i.e. I don't find using it to be a pain... in fact, I use it in the 
implementation today).

What alternative design do you propose?

Bill Kempf