From: Philip Nash (philip.nash_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-31 10:28:20
Bill Kempf said:
> a null_mutex type can be coded up with out any effort at all
> For that reason I've not included this type [null_mutex] in Boost.Threads.
> important that we get Boost.Threads accepted quickly, and this means I
need to keep
> the library "minimal but complete" for the initial submission.
I understand the reasoning as presented but I think that is a shame. I know
a null_mutex is trivial to write, because I have written plenty :-) It will
be nice when we can just use the one that is there (although, by definition,
all alternate "implementations" should be interchangeable anyway).
Anyway, what is the status of this submission now? I keep reading that it is
"nearly ready" - is that still the case or have I missed something?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk