Re: [boost] Lock unification (shared vs. upgradable)

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.

B.