Date: 2001-09-23 09:44:44
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> No, it's just the idea that the condition waits (or sleeps, or
> you choose to call it) that's really odd.
From another response I gather you find it odd only because the name
of the concept is "condition", and to you conditions don't wait.
You're thinking of the "condition" in terms of some boolean
expression. But this isn't precisely what a "condition" is... the
boolean expression isn't actually a part of the concept.
The "condition" is solely a synchronization object, and as such it
can and does "wait". Seems to me that what you'd really prefer is to
rename "condition", but there's too much historical meaning to do so.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk