From: Roland Schwarz (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-01 06:24:49
I'd like to know the rationale behind mutex concept requiring
explicit locking signatures.
Are users of the library "allowed" to access them directly?
If yes why? Isn't this redundant to locks?
Not requiring them, but letting them be implementation defined
will allow the implementor more freedom.
The only required concept should be: being able to take the address
of the mutex. (Because this makes it unique.)
E.g. the requirement for these N2094 mutex concepts would make
implementation of my proposed POD mutex variant impossible.
E.g. the current boost mutex also does not need to make these
Sorry if I misunderstood the document. I would be glad if
someone (H. Hinnant?) could explain to me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk