[Boost-commit] svn:boost r42010 - sandbox/committee/LWG

From: bdawes_at_[hidden]
Date: 2007-12-13 13:16:38

Author: bemandawes
Date: 2007-12-13 13:16:38 EST (Thu, 13 Dec 2007)
New Revision: 42010
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/42010

Log:
V1 Issues #16, 23, 48
Text files modified: 
   sandbox/committee/LWG/issues.html         |     6 +++---                                  
   sandbox/committee/LWG/thread_library.html |    12 ++++++------                            
   2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Modified: sandbox/committee/LWG/issues.html
==============================================================================
--- sandbox/committee/LWG/issues.html	(original)
+++ sandbox/committee/LWG/issues.html	2007-12-13 13:16:38 EST (Thu, 13 Dec 2007)
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@
 lock() for a mutex object shall call unlock()." This is a requirement,
 mixed
 in with otherwise non-normative text. Remove it. </p>
-<p>16. [thread.mutex.requirements] (30.3.1), effects of m.lock(), etc.:
+<p>&#10004; 16. [thread.mutex.requirements] (30.3.1), effects of m.lock(), etc.:
 &quot;The
 expression ... shall be well-defined...&quot; That last word should be
 &quot;well-formed&quot;. </p>
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@
 requirements, types are required to meet the Mutex requirements.&quot;
 Instad of
 &quot;are required to&quot;, use &quot;shall&quot;. </p>
-<p>23. [thread.timedmutex.requirements] (30.3.2): see 14, 16 </p>
+<p>&#10004; (16) 23. [thread.timedmutex.requirements] (30.3.2): see 14, 16 </p>
 <p>24. [thread.timedmutex.requirements] (30.3.2), effects clause: &quot;If the
 indicated time duration is less than or equal to 0, the function still
 attempts to obtain ownership without blocking&quot; change &quot;indicated&quot; to
@@ -292,7 +292,7 @@
 I assume
 that it's mostly cut-and-paste, and that the same issues as in
 [threads.condvar] apply (except 46). </p>
-<p>48. [time.duration.requirements] (31.1), third paragraph: see 16. </p>
+<p>&#10004; 48. [time.duration.requirements] (31.1), third paragraph: see 16. </p>
 <p>49. [time.duration.requirements] (31.1), table: the subscript at-entry
 is
 jarring at best. &lt;g&gt; How about defining another symbol, say, d0, which

Modified: sandbox/committee/LWG/thread_library.html
==============================================================================
--- sandbox/committee/LWG/thread_library.html	(original)
+++ sandbox/committee/LWG/thread_library.html	2007-12-13 13:16:38 EST (Thu, 13 Dec 2007)
@@ -1333,7 +1333,7 @@
 </p>
 
 <p>
-The expression <code>m.lock()</code> shall be well-defined,
+The expression <code>m.lock()</code> shall be well-formed,
 and have the following semantics:
 </p>
 
@@ -1370,7 +1370,7 @@
 </blockquote>
 
 <p>
-The expression <code>m.try_lock()</code> shall be well-defined,
+The expression <code>m.try_lock()</code> shall be well-formed,
 and have the following semantics:
 </p>
 
@@ -1427,7 +1427,7 @@
 </blockquote>
 
 <p>
-The expression <code>m.unlock()</code> shall be well-defined,
+The expression <code>m.unlock()</code> shall be well-formed,
 and have the following semantics:
 </p>
 
@@ -1599,7 +1599,7 @@
 </p>
 
 <p>
-The expression <code>m.timed_lock(rel_time)</code> shall be well-defined,
+The expression <code>m.timed_lock(rel_time)</code> shall be well-formed,
 and have the following semantics:
 </p>
 
@@ -1654,7 +1654,7 @@
 </blockquote>
 
 <p>
-The expression <code>m.timed_lock(abs_time)</code> shall be well-defined,
+The expression <code>m.timed_lock(abs_time)</code> shall be well-formed,
 and have the following semantics:
 </p>
 
@@ -3778,7 +3778,7 @@
 CopyConstructible, DefaultConstructible, CopyAssignable, Swappable, and
 Destructible.
 In addition, it must meet the requirements
-for well-defined expressions specified in the following table,
+for well-formed expressions specified in the following table,
 where <code>D</code> and <code>E</code> are duration types,
 <code>d</code> denotes a <code>const</code> value of type <code>D</code>,
 <code>e</code> denotes a <code>const</code> value of type <code>E</code>,