Re: [boost] Re: mutex_traits<>

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.