Date: 2001-07-17 15:23:43
--- In boost_at_y..., williamkempf_at_h... wrote:
> --- In boost_at_y..., Jeremy Siek <jsiek_at_r...> wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 williamkempf_at_h... wrote:
> > Ok, I'm happy with the above syntax. I'd recommend changing the
> > monitor/buffer example to use the above syntax. We should
> > use examples that show inheritance from a mutex, it just doesn't
> work in
> > too many situations.
> I'm not so sure about that. Most objects that are shared objects
> not going to need copyable semantics. The buffer is a classic
> example. It should be a noncopyable design. In that case there's
> reason to not use inheritance. I totally agree that the example I
> gave needs to be placed in the FAQ so that proper usage is well
> defined for the case where copyable semantics are needed, but I
> think we need to go as far as you suggest here.
Never mind. The copy semantics don't make for a good reason, but the
need for mutable mutex locks within const methods does. The buffer
example doesn't need either, but since most objects will, it would be
better to make the example follow the "safer" pattern. I'll change
the example code.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk