[boost] Re: Lock unification [move]

From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-22 17:58:58

David Abrahams wrote:
> Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>>So in your example l2 would be unlocked, l1 would remain locked, and
>>the underlying mutex lock count would be decremented by 1.
> 
> 
> weird; the mutex association is not transferred along with
> "locked-ness"?

It throws if the two locks don't refer to the same mutex.

> 
> Uh-oh: I think I just invoked the locked-ness monster.

<groan>  ;-)

-- 
Eric Niebler
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com