From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-16 07:34:55
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> I'm not too worried. It really would be semantically identical and
>> the timed lock code could contain a branch for the zero case if you
>> want efficiency.
>> It might still be too cute, but as long as we're talking about
>> slimming the interface down we should discuss it.
> This implicitly assumes relative timeouts.
As opposed to what? Maybe I don't understand the term.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk