From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-14 09:31:53
Anthony Williams wrote:
> "Phil Endecott" <spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Anthony Williams wrote:
>>> One principle behind the new lock templates is that it should be easy
>>> to incorporate new mutex and lock types, and they will still work with the
>>> existing facilities (e.g. condition_variable_any).
>> Hi Anthony,
>> Can you clarify what you mean by that please? Are you saying that if I
>> have a new mutex (e.g. my futex implementation) I should be able to use
>> it with the existing condition_variable_any? (Is that what the "_any"
>> means?) If that's true I'm impressed; I thought that it was necessary
>> to have some sort of atomic unlock-A-and-lock-B method to do that.
> Yes, that's what I meant, and that's what the _any means (as opposed to
> condition_variable which only works with unique_lock<mutex> (also known as
I'm not totally enthralled by the condition_variable_any name. If
someone has a suggestion for a more meaningful name, now is a good time
to speak up.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk