From: Hillel Y. Sims (hsims_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-17 16:29:10
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> It may be late to change this, but I'd like the most-convenient names
> to correspond to the safer constructs. So, for example, I'd prefer it
> if "recursive_mutex" were called "mutex" and if the current "mutex"
> were called something else, though I can't think of a good
> name. Neither "nonrecursive_mutex" or "unspecified_locking_mutex" is
> very satisfying.
David Butenhof among others have often said that use of recursive mutexes is
almost always a bad idea, except that they are a necessary evil in some
cases (eg, dealing with old bad code). (I'm sure there are a bunch of
relevant google links from comp.programming.threads about this if anyone
wants to search for them...)
-- Hillel Y. Sims FactSet Research Systems hsims AT factset.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk