[boost] Re: Threads

From: jsiek_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-08-22 14:07:45

William Kempf writes:
 > I think you're jumping to conclusions.  There may be a way to code 
 > the lock_pointer using the MutexLock (I'd bet there is, I just 

The only way I see is to dynamically allocate the lock object, which
is something we were thinking about disallowing.

 > haven't worked on it yet).  Even if not, all that's really needed is 
 > to make the lock_pointer a friend of the Mutex, the same as is done 
 > for the MutexLock.  I see no reason to expose the lock/unlock methods 
 > of the mutex on the public interface.

That might work... though this could be a slippery slope, where the
friend list inside the mutex classes keeps growing and growing...

Cheers,

Jeremy