Re: Threads

From: William Kempf (sirwillard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-04 11:40:14

--- In boost_at_[hidden], Beman Dawes <beman_at_e...> wrote:
> William Kempf wrote:
> 
>  > ...
>  >
>  > ...  There are numerous ways to do
>  >synchronization, but the most primitive form available to library
>  >writers is the mutex.  Unless someone has some other idea, can we 
at
>  >least start our discussion with this primitive?
> 
> What base document do we look at for the definition of a mutex?

I provided the definition in another post, so I won't state it 
again.  I admit that I should have given the definition of a mutex 
before asking the question you quote above.  However, the fact that 
you asked this begs a question to me.  Why are you asking what a 
mutex is?

I fully agree that we need to have definitions for everything we 
discuss here, and I can see the need for a formal definition being 
given before terms are used here (and possibly revised as the 
discussion progresses).  However, there are several definitions that 
are well known, and a mutex is one such.  Other areas of boost have 
been discussed and worked on here with out formal definition of well 
known terms within their area of use.  Is the problem here that not 
enough people are familiar with the basic terms of cuncurrent 
programming, or is it something else that I'm missing.  I ask so that 
I know how to proceed in this discussion.