From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-16 08:11:39
David Abrahams wrote:
> "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.
As opposed to absolute timeouts (either rooted on 1970-1-1 00:00:00 UTC or
monotonic). Although, now that I think of it, zero does mean a try lock in
all of these, so my statement is wrong.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk