From: Bronek Kozicki (brok_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-08 05:00:18
Howard Hinnant wrote:
> But when that happens, the generic
> lock(lock1,lock2) function no longer works:
I'm little scared about such lock function, where order of lock
operations is disconnected from order of unlock operations. However this
is something that possibly could be fixed - I'm thinking about building
chains of locks.
> If sharable and upgradable are merged, then the above mistake could
> transform itself from a compile time error into a run time error.
Right, this is weak point of moving difference in lock semantics from
compile time to runtime. Now I agree with you that we should take
benefit of type system to avoid such problems.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk