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

From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-25 07:08:50

Peter Dimov wrote:
> 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.

Hinting the user to lock a mutex by accepting a lock is getting too 
psychological for my taste. If it was enforced by the compiler, then 
maybe, but since the compiler can't... When it comes to locking, nobody 
hints anyone to lock a mutex before accessing a shared resource - it's 
the user responsibility, and we assume he does it. No hinting or 
hand-holding is required. The last sentence is both a "psychological" 
argument, and a technical one. The technical being that if before the 
call to wait(), the user accesses a shared resource (the while 
condition), and if the user pedantically locks when it comes to shared 
resources, then the mutex is locked when calling wait(), and there's no 
need to hint.

That said, I know that any "psychological" debate has the potential of 
never being settled. Too many things depending on "taste". It's even 
less of an exact science than computer science :)

> 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. 

Did he take unique_locks into account?