Re: Threads: monitors vs. primitives

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 
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?

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.