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

From: Matthew Vogt (mvogt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-05 21:20:12

Michael Glassford <glassfordm <at> hotmail.com> writes:

> I agree. That's why I've so far only provided the Boost.Threads 
> read/write lock try_promote() and timed_promote() methods (though you 
> can, of course, get the latter to deadlock by using infinite times), and 
> no promote() method. You could make a promote() method that throws if it 
> can't promote, as you suggest below, but I don't like the idea much.
> 

Why don't you like the exception?  I'll admit immediately to not having given
this much thought, but the exception seems appropriate to a coding pattern
based on RAII, since it gives simple control flow back to a user-chosen 
failure handling point, freeing any previously taken locks.

ALso, boost.thread already defines the lock_error exception for lock failure.

Matt