Re: [boost] Threads Review

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-17 10:02:18

Anthony Williams <anthony.williamsNOSPAM_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams writes:

>  > In any case, I'm inclined to step back and see if there's a better way
>  > to accomplish what's being described in this part of the
>  > documentation. I don't think accessibility is actually important to
>  > what's being said, if you read carefully. My sense is that we want to
>  > say something like:
>  > 
>  >    If a thread reads or writes the value of an object while another
>  >    thread is writing the value of that object, 
> 
>  or after such a write, without an appropriate intervening synchronization
> primitive,

I don't think it's neccessary to say that. In a multithreaded program
you only have the synchronization primitives to control sequencing
between threads, so to the user, the above really means "if there's
any way this can happen".

> You're probably right that this is a better way of describing it.

Thanks. Of course, I've not followed Beman's caution to read the book
before attempting anything ;-)

-- 
                    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