From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-31 14:41:46
----- Original Message -----
From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> Interesting idea, but in practice I think it actually is more
> difficult to use then the "traits" solution. There'd have to be an
> overloaded constructor that didn't lock the mutex, but set it's
> internal state to indicate that the mutex actually is locked.
Why? There would be an unlock() operation, just no lock().
> This is the sort of thing that I find difficult to learn, because
> there are so many violations of the "rules". Is there a book(s) that
> describe modern day C++ design choices?
I don't think so; these are probably just my personal predilections.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk