Re: [boost] [thread] Questions/concerns about recentthreadlibchanges

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-18 11:06:44

On Oct 18, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Jeff Garland wrote:

> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Jeff Garland wrote:
>>
>>> n2320 proposal includes both relative and absolute timeouts for the
>>> condition variables.
>>
>> It does? I only see
>>
>>    bool timed_wait(lock_type& lock, const utc_time& abs_time);
>>    template <class Predicate>
>>        bool timed_wait(lock_type& lock, const utc_time& abs_time,  
>> Predicate
>> pred);
>>
>> in
>>
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2320.html#ConditionVariablesWording
>>
>> and N2406 follows suit:
>>
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2406.html#cond_var_synop
>
> I stand correct -- I think it was 'supposed to' ;-)  Sorry, I've  
> seen various
> revisions of this paper some of which in my recollection had  
> relative time
> interfaces.  So let me say it another way: I believe a relative time  
> interface
> should be offered here in addition to the absolute time.  So I'm not  
> sure what
> happened there -- Howard may have talked me out of it somehow or  
> maybe it was
> accidentally dropped...

I haven't written a paper with a relative time on the predicate  
version of cv::timed_wait, but I have no objection to such an overload  
if it can be done (with concepts or enable_if or whatever) -- on the  
predicate version only.  This might be considered a semantic  
difference so may require a separate paper.

-Howard