From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-22 18:29:47
Howard Hinnant wrote:
> And all of the sudden the above code is no longer legal. If the code
> is legal with one constructor, what is it that makes the code a logic
> error **100% of the time**, instead of a fixable exceptional
> circumstance when using the second constructor?
By using the constructor that takes a mutex argument, I have specifically
and intentionally said that it is a logic error for this condition to be
used with another mutex. That's the whole and only purpose of the
constructor, to express this intent of mine.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk