Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-29 10:21:23

Next message: Michael Glassford: "[boost] Re: Boost.Threads proposed change: lock constructors"
Previous message: David Abrahams: "[boost] Re: ReLRe: 1.32 release preparation"
In reply to: Doug Gregor: "Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads: Do we need all those mutexes?"
Next in thread: Doug Gregor: "Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads: Do we need all those mutexes?"
Reply: Doug Gregor: "Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads: Do we need all those mutexes?"

Doug Gregor <dgregor_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Right, so what we have (I think) are reasonably well-designed classes with
> incorrectly specified concepts. scoped_lock should really lock; try_lock
> should just try to lock.

I don't understand; are you addressing the concept problem above?
scoped_lock refers to a class, right?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com

Next message: Michael Glassford: "[boost] Re: Boost.Threads proposed change: lock constructors"
Previous message: David Abrahams: "[boost] Re: ReLRe: 1.32 release preparation"
In reply to: Doug Gregor: "Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads: Do we need all those mutexes?"
Next in thread: Doug Gregor: "Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads: Do we need all those mutexes?"
Reply: Doug Gregor: "Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads: Do we need all those mutexes?"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk