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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-24 21:30:54

Yuval Ronen wrote:

> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Howard Hinnant wrote:
>>
>>> Or should condition::wait() not take any parameters, or take only
>>> mutexes, making the issue moot?
>>
>> I think that we ought to keep the lock argument, even if we end up not 
>> using
>> it for anything except debug checks. It helps people avoid accidental 
>> calls
>> to 'wait' without locking the mutex first.
>
> If, by "It helps people avoid accidental...", you mean "at compile
> time", then it's not always detected in compile time, because the
> existence of a lock doesn't mean a mutex is locked (e.g. unique_lock).

I meant "helps people avoid accidental mistakes at the time they're writing 
the code". The function encourages correct use by asking for a lock, 
implying that the mutex needs to be locked first.

There was an article by Andrei Alexandrescu somewhere on informit.com where 
he advocated a similar pattern: the functions that assume that a mutex has 
been locked should take a lock argument.