From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-15 13:19:02
--- In boost_at_y..., "terekhov" <terekhov_at_d...> wrote:
> --- In boost_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> > Not true. All that would be required is to have the Boost
> > synchronization primitives built on top of a complex condition
> > variable that can watch both the state it's interested in (such
> > mutex being unlocked) and for a cancellation request.
> > Trivial to implement
> Really? Perhaps then I did something wrong here:
I don't see anything wrong with what you did, though I didn't read
the code too closely. What makes you assume you must have done
something wrong because of what I just said?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk