From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-09 09:01:26
Anthony Williams wrote:
> How about a try_lock(spin_count) call? or even a lock(spin_count)?
> Would that be superfluous?
This is an interesting suggestion that I've never seen before. Specifically,
lock( 0 ) looks quite valuable if the default number of spins is left
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk