Boost logo

Boost :

From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-04 09:44:06

"Roland Schwarz" <roland.schwarz_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Having followed the discussion about the availability of direct
> locking of mutexes,
> I am somewhat surprised that there are free functions available for
> this purpose.
> Is this by intent? Is using them simply bad practice?
> I.e.:
> boost::mutex m1;
> boost::detail::thread::lock_ops<boost::mutex>::lock(&m1);
> is e legal statement. (And indeed is locking the mutex.)
> Yes I've seen the "detail". Does this imply: Anything that is detail
> definitely should
> not go into user programs?

Yes. In my understanding, anything in the detail namespace is an
implementation detail, is not part of the public interface, and is
subject to change without notice. Also, it very likely would be
different in an alternate implementation that used the Boost public

> I am asking this not for pure 'academic' reasons. What I am trying
> to do is to find
> out whether it is possible to write a small wrapper over the
> existing classes to support
> a kind of cancellability for my threads, until the "real thing" will
> be available.
> Thank you.
> Roland


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at