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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk