Boost logo

Boost :

From: William Kempf (sirwillard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-14 12:03:31

--- In boost_at_[hidden], jsiek_at_l... wrote:
> Suppose there is a thread library implementation that provides a
> 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?

I don't follow this. We're defining the library here. We can decide
that the mutex class must have a CV class. What other libraries have
defined makes no difference here.

Even if you were to argue that we may have a "mutex type" that won't
have a corresponding CV (sounds like a mistake to me, but let's use
this argument), what's preventing you from simply not including the
nested CV in this case? I don't see how this is any different from
the iterator concept having classifications that indicate what
functionality is included.

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