Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-22 22:17:19

on Wed Aug 22 2007, Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, this is my last post for approximately 24 hours (for unrelated,  
> personal reasons).  If I don't answer in a timely fashion for a day,  
> please know that it is not because I'm ignoring you.
>
> I wanted to leave off with a few "PS" type comments:
>
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Zach Laine wrote:
>
>> Could the folks who object to the
>> current design spell it out for me a bit more explicitly -- what in
>> the design is dangerous/inconvenient enough to throw away one or more
>> of the 4 goals?
>
> I would like to see an answer to Zach's question too.  I do not know  
> what the major objection is with the "current proposal".  I only know  
> that people are suggesting alternatives.

1. I'm extremely wary of turning what is almost certainly a
   programming error into an exception (std::vector<T>::at
   notwithstanding), for reasons laid out in this thread:
   http://tinyurl.com/2ph58t

2. I think the concept of unique_lock is too fuzzy.  I know what
   unique_ptr (and auto_ptr, and shared_ptr, and scoped_ptr) mean.
   With unique_lock, I can't quite tell.  This might ultimately end up
   being fixed by a naming change, but I think there's an underlying
   conceptual problem, or at the very least, a missing rationale.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com
The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com