Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] synchronized_value: value and move semantics
From: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-26 15:20:30
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Ben Pope <benpope81_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I think this should just not exist in C++11 and instead be replaced by
> something like monitor<T> described by Herb Sutter :
I'm using several variants of Monitor in my projects.
It don't work well in cases where what you really want is syncrhonization,
which happen sometime when the design suggests it.
In this case you need a mutex, so synchronized_value helps with that.
In my opinion, If the multiple access is a bottleneck in real application,
it is very easy to spot with a profiler and modify the code as you pointed.