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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk