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

From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-22 13:11:46

Peter Dimov wrote:
> Howard Hinnant wrote:
> 
>> Vendor C, with the best of intentions, decides that the release build
>> of the std::lib should contain this checking (std::lib vendors
>> including debug checks in release builds should sound familiar to many
>> of you).  Now we have goal #3, but have lost goal #1, and there is no
>> wrapper we can use to get it back.
>>
>> How do we prevent, or at least discourage, Vendor C from taking this
>> path?
> 
> Shouldn't Vendor C be allowed this freedom? If its customers prefer paying 
> the price of a pointer in exchange for the ever-present checks, why should 
> the vendor be prevented from delivering the product they want? We can 
> explain the rationale for the design and our suggested implementation in 
> non-normative notes and let the vendors make the informed decision. 

FWIW, I agree.
I'm trying to convince removing the Lock argument from wait() function, 
which might not exactly coincide with this discussion, but as far as 
this discussion goes, I agree.