From: Lie-Quan Lee (llee1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-19 17:47:10
At Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:16:47 -0000,
> > > A "lock_tag" might be useful. I'm not sure that full blown
> > > would be, at least with the types as defined today. Can you
> > > illustrate how these concepts could be useful?
> > I think that all general comments of using traits can be applied
> > here. For exmaple, using "mutex::lock" put a stronger requirement on
> > mutex type.
> I'm probably being dense, but I don't see how. Could you please
> illustrate with some code?
By a stronger requirement in the example "mutex:lock", I means lock
type has to be inside of mutex type. Meanwhile by using a traits, that
is not necessary. Any mutex implementation which has corresponding
lock type through traits can be used to construct the lock.
For example, you have your own mutex class,
Somehow you forgot to define lock/trylock/timedlock inside :-).
I may write a traits specialization to despatch to right lock types.
typedef Bill_mutex_lock lock;
Although You might argue that to write a wrapper class,
new_Bill_mutex, adding the lock types in to conform the type requirement.
-- Lie-Quan Lee
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk