Boost logo

Boost :

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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at