From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-10 15:04:04
From: "Ed Brey" <edbrey_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> > But your proposed uniform wait() syntax doesn't work AFAICS. wait() on a
> > condition variable needs additional argument(s).
> In general, I don't see the additional arguments posing any problem. You
> overload wait() with arguments as needed.
There is no technical problem. I'm only saying that the syntax is not
uniform. You wait on a thread with
and perhaps you could also wait until specified time xt is reached with
(replacing thread::sleep.) [ This probably goes too far. ;-) ]
but you wait on a CV with
wait(cv, lock, pred);
In the CV case I find the member syntax cv.wait(...) a bit easier to read.
> The only exception is
> condition::timed_wait(). It would be nice to also call this wait(), and
just let the
> argument type perform the differentiation, but the templatezation prevents
It doesn't, timed_wait has one additional argument.
> That brings up a question I have. What is an envisioned scenario for not
> a predefined locking class in the first place? If there isn't one,
> templates brings forth the possibility of making the interface even
> more consistent.
What if Boost.Threads doesn't include a critical section forcing me to roll
my own? The current design handles anything that is a ScopedLock, and this
is a good thing.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk