[boost] Re: Lock unification

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-16 08:46:32

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

Regardless, if our interface is going to support timed locks, don't
we need to choose one of these schemes?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com