From: Pete Becker (petebecker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-06 11:19:59
At 10:36 AM 8/6/2002 -0500, William E. Kempf wrote:
>I've discussed this with Mr. Becker before, and since he dropped the thread
>I assumed we agreed it wasn't possible to implement his interface. Now I
>guess this isn't true.
It never was true. I dropped the thread because you made some conclusory
statements about what I had in mind, although I had said no such thing. I
saw no point in continuing.
>True static initialization means that it occurs at compile time, not at run
>time. This eliminates the initialization order problem, since any needs for
>runtime thread synchronization are absent when initialized at compile time.
>This type of static initialization is possible in C++, but requires POD
>types. The design Mr. Becker proposes doesn't use a POD type, and thus
>construction will occur at run time, and this means run time synchronization
Construction at runtime does not require runtime synchronization. You're
making some assumptions here, and I don't want to guess what you have in mind.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk