From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-05 11:22:33
a poor implementation is no reason to ass/u/me that the concept is poor
At Wednesday 2003-06-04 12:23, you wrote:
>Nicolas Fleury wrote:
> > > http://google.com/groups?selm=3CED3306.DF6DB829%40web.de
> > > (Subject: Re: many semaphores)
> > Would it be possible to post some code that "experience has shown" to be
> > error-prone using semaphores comparing with conditions/mutexes?
>Sure... thanks to the Microsoft Corp.
>Take a look at their brain-damaged "metered section" semaphore
>implementation. Note that MS "auto-reset event" is nothing but
>a binary sema (well, brain-dead "pulsing" aside for a moment).
>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