From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-05 11:08:31
I'm baffled that they want to penalize (time and space) those for whom a
naked semaphore works. It's blatantly clear to anyone who's had to write a
mutex that it's additional code on TOP of a semaphore.
we always implemented semaphore first, then added the mutex wrapper for
those who needed it.
then again, the Ada committee saw fit to standardize on rendezvous which
can be implemented trivially w/ 2 semaphores, but not the other way 'round.
I've always believed that you made the basics available to others to make
their own tools, and convenience wrappers for commonly used things.
I've also never actually _seen_ the implementation of a semaphore with a
mutex and a condition variable, and don't readily envision it.
At Wednesday 2003-06-04 08:00, you wrote:
>Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> > hi there,
> > I'v been trying to find some info as to why semaphores
> > are considered harmful by the boost::thread authors,
> > without luck. Is there any concise text describing
> > the problem ?
> > I'v been using semaphores for years and can't think of
> > what should be wrong with it.
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk