From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-16 17:19:55
Aside from editorial changes which I'll post as a patch set:
The term "concept" is overused in this document, where "primitive",
"construct", or "object" would be more appropriate.
The rationale for the Lock object is somewhat roundabout. The second
"A lock object is not a synchronization primitive"
But you've never defined "synchronization primitive", so this is not
meaningful. The crux of the issue is buried in the least-emphasized
part of the paragraph (the middle):
"instances of a lock object are only going to be created, at least
in theory, within block scope and won't be shared between
[what's with '? I doubt that's legal, and the job could be done by
"'" just as well, couldn't it?]
But anyway, I'll attempt a rewording in my patch set.
In the sequence of usage comparisons between thread_ref and
noncopyable thread object, it's unclear in some cases which is
which. A side-by-side table with descriptive headings would be easier.
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Building C/C++ Extensions for Python: Dec 9-11, Austin, TX http://www.enthought.com/training/building_extensions.html
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk