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
It throws if the two locks don't refer to the same mutex.
> Uh-oh: I think I just invoked the locked-ness monster.
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting 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