Re: first sight

From: terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-15 14:00:09

--- In boost_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> --- 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 
> as 
> > a 
> > > mutex being unlocked) and for a cancellation request. 
> > > Trivial to implement
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > Really? Perhaps then I did something wrong here:
> > 
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3B0BA709.973337EB%
40web.de
> 
> 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?

I thought that you mean something else (a *better*, "trivial" 
solution) which would for example, NOT require locking of 
TWO mutexes at the same time in a different order and thus, 
would not need any trylock deadlock resolution. (Personally, 
I am always become very suspicion when I see something like 
this. To me, this is not something, which I would characterize
as "trivial").

regards,
alexander.