RE: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads: Do we need all those mutexes?

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).

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Matt Hurd
Sent: Wednesday, 30 June 2004 10:42 AM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads: Do we need all those mutexes?

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:17:04 +1000, Batov, Vladimir
<vladimir.batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> 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 :-)

matt.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost