Boost logo

Boost :

From: jsiek_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-08-14 11:38:39

Suppose there is a thread library implementation that provides a mutex
class but not a condition variable class. Why would you want to
require that their mutex class have a nested typedef for a
non-existent condition variable class?

William Kempf writes:
> I've thought carefully about what Jeremy has said, and it is a valid
> argument. I still don't know that I agree with it, however. We've
> nested the lock class within the mutex. Why? The mutex concept can
> exist with out the lock concept (though that would require making
> public lock/unlock methods... but I don't find that to be a
> compelling enough reason to embed the lock). To my mind we nested
> the lock because it depends strongly on the implementation of the
> mutex. The same is true of the CV. I see no physical or logical
> constraints placed on us by embedding the CV, while I like the
> bundling. After all, the CV can't exist with out the mutex, so it
> makes sense to make it an embedded type to me.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at