Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-23 20:42:43

----- Original Message -----
From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> --- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> > No, it's just the idea that the condition waits (or sleeps, or
> whatever else
> > 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.

No, I don't think that's it at all. To my way of thinking, there are only a
few things in the system that can wait. I'll try to list all of them, or at
least all I can think of:

the CPU
the program
a thread
a process
a daemon
the user ;-)

I don't really know what a condition is but a mutex is a synchronization
object, and so is a semaphore. I can't see how either one waits.

I'm not pressing on this because I think I know anything about the domain
(well, I know a little, but not much). I'm doing it because there seems to
be a profound clash with my understanding of the English (and computer)
semantics of the terminology. I don't think my sense of these things is far
off from how people commonly think, so IMO it merits some attention.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at