|
Boost : |
From: Alisdair Meredith (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-18 18:40:17
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> 1. Does not Boost.Thread already have locking mechanisms
> 2. IMO any locking mechanisms should be implemented in terms of smart_ptr
I don't see the fundamental connection between locking and smart
pointers.
In particular, which smart_ptr are we talking about? shared_ptr [which
may need locking internally for reference count anyway]
or shared_ptr?
Why should locks be dynamic rather than stack allocated at all? I'd
have though stack-allocation far more intuitive?
-- AlisdairM
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk