From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-08 14:15:55
At 12:27 PM 6/8/00 -0400, Borgerding, Mark A. wrote:
>Isn't all this talk about library calls/system calls/volatile
getting us a
>I thought that we were trying to come up with the abstract behavior
>synchronization primitives, not a concrete realization. Isn't it
>at this point to come up with requirements like, "A guard shall lock
>mutex at the point of construction and release it at the point of
>destruction." If we all agree that the requirement *can* be
>why argue about the specifics of *how* it will be done.
My worry is avoiding apparently reasonable requirements which may not
be realizable within the context of Standard C++.
Several past proposals were dismissed by the C++ committee without
real consideration because they relied on behavior outside the scope
of the C++ standard. Thus my interest on avoiding such outside
behavior where possible, and relying on some other ISO standard as a
I'm probably just being fussy.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk