Boost logo

Boost :

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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at