Date: 2001-09-01 14:53:38
--- In boost_at_y..., "Gustavo Guerra" <gustavobt_at_m...> wrote:
> In general, I think the library is well designed and should be
> Some comments:
> Have you considered the inclusion of a read/write lock? I think it
> common use. It's implemented in POSIX, and it's not hard to
> other systems on top of a semaphore.
Yes, this has been discussed. The plan is to add this as a later
extension. There are some issues with the design that will take some
doing and I didn't want this to hold up submission of the library.
In fact, if you read the introduction you'll see that I've documented
the plan to add this concept in the next phase.
> I think the semaphore docs need to be clarified. Those "As If"
> very clear.
I'll look at this, but it's sounding like semaphore may go away. At
least two people have suggested removing it in this review process.
> There's no mention of thread_resource_error in the docs. Why
> the exception classes have a 'what' member function?
I goofed with the docs for thread_resource_error and will add it this
weekend, hopefully. Both exception classes do have 'what' member
functions, documented indirectly in the synopsis which shows they
both derive from std::runtime_error. I probably should explicitly
document this, though.
> In mutex_concept.html the [Schmidt 00] link is not right. It should
> #Schmidt-00 instead of #Schmidt 00
Thanks, I'll correct this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk