Re: [boost] Re: Threads: what I wrote...

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-10 11:44:47

In message <8mucel+n19n_at_[hidden]>, William Kempf <sirwillard_at_my-
deja.com> writes
[...]
>That's a good question, but it begs whether or not the try_lock 
>should not have been handled like wise.  Also, if we include a 
>timed_lock I don't think we need a try_lock, since it's equivalent to 
>a timed_lock with a timeout of 0.

Given that most APIs provide try locking as a basic concept (and not
always necessarily implemented under the hood as a timeout of 0), we
should mirror this rather than forcing folks to write magic zeroes or to
rely on default args that look odd ("in what way is this timed if I
don't provide a time?").
____________________________________________________________

  Kevlin Henney                   phone:  [phone]
  Curbralan Ltd                   mobile: [phone]
  kevlin_at_[hidden]            fax:    [phone]
____________________________________________________________