From: Levente Farkas (lfarkas_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-14 10:36:41
William Kempf wrote:
> --- In boost_at_[hidden], Levente Farkas <lfarkas_at_m...> wrote:
> > William Kempf wrote:
> > > > create the lock on the heap can't help here.
> > >
> > > And why not?
> > since you can't protect a.next() in that way.
> Why not?
boost::lock* lock = new boost::lock(m);
for (int i = a.get(); i < 100; a.next())
lock = new boost::lock(m);
since you can do it just the following way, but this code create 100 lock
ps. anyway I can agree with csaba, if we don't have lock/unlock on mutex at
least we need it on lock (yes this is the unsafe_lock and we loose compile
time check and...almost everything safe, but the exception safety).
"The only thing worse than not knowing the truth is
ruining the bliss of ignorance."
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk