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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-27 13:29:43

on Mon Aug 27 2007, Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

>>> until further notice, no other object in the program has executed
>>> __l1.lock(), or __l1.try_lock() (or any of the other functions
>>> which a can put a mutex into a exclusive locked state) without
>>> having already executed __l1.unlock().
>>
>> It sounds like you're saying that it's legit for some "other object in
>> the program" to call __l1.unlock() while __u1 is uniquely holding
>> __l1's lock state.  Are you really saying that?
>
> No.  I'm saying __u1 owns the exclusively locked state of __l1.  What  
> that ownership means is __l1's business.  

What was all that about executing __l1.unlock(), then?  Should I just
ignore it?

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