From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-27 13:29:43
on Mon Aug 27 2007, Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>> until further notice, no other object in the program has executed
>>> __l1.lock(), or __l1.try_lock() (or any of the other functions
>>> which a can put a mutex into a exclusive locked state) without
>>> having already executed __l1.unlock().
>> It sounds like you're saying that it's legit for some "other object in
>> the program" to call __l1.unlock() while __u1 is uniquely holding
>> __l1's lock state. Are you really saying that?
> No. I'm saying __u1 owns the exclusively locked state of __l1. What
> that ownership means is __l1's business.
What was all that about executing __l1.unlock(), then? Should I just
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk