Boost logo

Boost :

From: William Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-19 13:50:24

>From: Eric D Crahen <crahen_at_[hidden]>
>I mean that the lock is owned, created and destroyed by the GuardedObject
>only. That's the important scope I was talking about.

Hmm... hadn't quite thought of it in those terms. The locking_ptr<> need
only contain two members, a mutex and a scoped_lock, and the proxy would
hold a reference to the scoped_lock. A little dangerous because this shares
the lock object across threads... but the idiom may be made to work. Then
the question remains, are there other examples/use cases where the lock must
be locked in one scope and unlocked in another where a similar idiom won't

I guess for now I'm going to table this until other examples can be found.

Bill Kempf

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at