|
Boost :
|
- Next message: Zach Laine: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Previous message: Rene Rivera: "Re: [boost] [Interprocess] barrier_test hanging on Apple PowerPC"
- In reply to: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Next in thread: David Abrahams: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Reply: David Abrahams: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Reply: Andres J. Tack: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
On 8/21/07, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Howard Hinnant wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the great comments Zach. owns_mutex() or some other
> > suggestion sounds fine to me too.
>
> How about holds_lock? 'owns' doesn't quite ring true with me.
That's the clearest one yet. holds_lock gets my vote.
Zach Laine
- Next message: Zach Laine: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Previous message: Rene Rivera: "Re: [boost] [Interprocess] barrier_test hanging on Apple PowerPC"
- In reply to: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Next in thread: David Abrahams: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Reply: David Abrahams: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Reply: Andres J. Tack: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk