Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-22 10:36:09

on Tue Aug 21 2007, Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> This line:
>
>          unique_lock<_L1> __u1(__l1);
>
> implicitly calls __.l1.lock() inside of the unique_lock constructor.   
> If __l1 is a mutex, the deed is done.  If __l1 is a lock, hopefully  
> that will forward to the referenced mutex's lock() function in the  
> proper manner.  And in the process, that should set the lock's owns()  
> data to true as well.

That's part of what I found counfounding about the name "unique_."
Now you have two locks (__l1 and __u1) that "own" the mutex.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com
The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com