From: Batov, Vladimir (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-29 21:52:52
1. Oh, c'mon, I never implied that your design was "dubious and likely
incorrect". It was said in the context of operator for std:list.
2. IMHO for a library to be accepted, embraced, popular, survive it has
to be suitable/convenient/intuitive for 80% of the users. The library
should not go out of its way to satisfy esoteric requirements of 20% at
the expense of clarity/simplicity/good design. Or example, std:auto_ptr
is not for everyone and not always work where I'd like it to work. It
does not mean std::auto_ptr needs to sacrifice its efficient and
minimalistic beauty to make me happy.
Getting back to Boost.Threads I'd still like to see a compelling example
where I'd need to declare try_lock but twist its intuitive functionality
into behaving like scoped_lock (that is blocking until locked).
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Matt Hurd
Sent: Wednesday, 30 June 2004 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads: Do we need all those mutexes?
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:17:04 +1000, Batov, Vladimir
> Why give the user an alternative with is
> dubious and likely incorrect?
It is a pattern of need for multithreaded programming where I work to
require single and multithreaded awareness for objects where
performance excludes the option of using separate object instances. I
don't think the design is dubious or incorrect it is mandated by the
business requirements. Though most of my designs usually are
incorrect or dubious ;-) I just call those tactical :-)
Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk