Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-15 10:41:23

Michael Glassford wrote:
> Sorry, the context doesn't make it clear but my paragraph above referred
> to the timed_mutex class...

I see; yes, in this case, you are right that timed_mutex needs to continue
holding a mutex and a condition variable in the general case. There is no
need to allocate a condition variable dynamically, however, as the existence
of pthread_mutex_timedlock is a compile-time thing.

> ... which, according to what I remember of your
> discussions with Howard, you (?) suggested would implement a timed
> lock regardless of whether it was supported by the platform and
> regardless of whether it could be implemented efficiently.

No, I did not suggest that; this is simply the current status quo, which
Howard likes to see preserved.

I suggested removing timed_mutex from the specification, leaving it in the
implementation only to support backwards compatibility. My argument was that
forcing the user to explicitly spell the mutex+condition combination hidden
by the timed_mutex may prompt said user to reevaluate and improve the
design, but this may be overly optimistic.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at