From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-08 10:32:57
From: Levente Farkas <lfarkas_at_[hidden]>
> William Kempf wrote:
> > My goal is safety, flexibility, attention to C++ constructs,
> > standardization (it would be nice to eventual make it into the
> > language standard) and speed. I think we're well on the way there.
> > I don't see the interfaces as being "usable only by experts", and in
> > fact think we've done the opposite... made advanced concepts easier
> > to use (correctly!) and understand by beginners.
> my other goal is to be clear, simple and small as my belive is if a code is
> smaller (where the smaller is not depend on the name of the variables and so)
> is better since it's more simple easier to read and can contain less bug.
I haven't been following this closely enough, but ...
1) I suspect your clear, simple examples will get more cluttered
when you make them exception-safe.
2) If you can identify idioms that require overlapping locks, and
can find a good way to codify those idioms in higher level C++
facility, then we can add that facility itself to Boost.
I'm not dead-set against exposing the lock() and unlock() primitives,
but you haven't convinced me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk