RE: [boost] Re: Lock unification [move]

From: Reid Sweatman (drunkardswalk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-22 17:11:46

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 5:48 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Lock unification [move]
> 
> 
> Glen Knowles wrote:
> >> From: Howard Hinnant [mailto:hinnant_at_[hidden]]
> >>> I mostly agree with Bronek Kozicki. Given a movable lock, Eric 
> >>> Niebler's
> >>> proposal:
> >>>
> >>>     scoped_lock try_lock( Mutex & m );
> >>>     scoped_lock timed_lock( Mutex & m );
> >>>
> >>> is a better try/timed interface. Heisenberg constructors must die.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't know what a Heisenberg constructor is.
> >
> > It's a reference to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
> 
> It's an indication that I can't tell Shroedinger's cat from 
> Heisenberg's principle. ;-)

Just back a truck over it; that should flatten its wave function nicely.
Hmmmn.  Maybe that's where Heinlein's "flat cats" aka "tribbles" found their
genesis; after all, remember the title of his penultimate novel.

My own personal theory, though, is that they generated spontaneously within
the Heisenberg energy/time limits, and at some point, they'll all find nice
Feynmann paths back to Quantum Samsara (think I just came up with a new rock
band...hey, don't laugh; remember Toad the Wet Sprocket?).

Okay, okay, okay...listen:  can God create a race condition so complete,
even He can't move the lock?  Woaaah, like, heavy, lil' dude!

Reid "I don't think that requires a smiley" Sweatman
--returning to my hot tub in my *real* universe... 

--------------------------

The foregoing has not been paid for by the "Mind is a Terrible Thing Society
of Lower Wapping," as they couldn't give a rusty quark for Mr. Mark about
it, and would just like everyone to know that.  Thank you.