From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-27 13:37:38
On Aug 27, 2007, at 1:29 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
> on Mon Aug 27 2007, Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant-AT-gmail.com>
>>>> 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
> ignore it?
I was trying to be precise. Instead I was confusing. Please ignore
it. unique_lock<Mutex> works just like
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk