|
Boost-Commit : |
From: bdawes_at_[hidden]
Date: 2007-12-14 13:38:37
Author: bemandawes
Date: 2007-12-14 13:38:36 EST (Fri, 14 Dec 2007)
New Revision: 42040
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/42040
Log:
V1 issues #24, 25, 26
Text files modified:
sandbox/committee/LWG/issues.html | 6 +++---
sandbox/committee/LWG/thread_library.html | 24 ++++++++++++------------
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Modified: sandbox/committee/LWG/issues.html
==============================================================================
--- sandbox/committee/LWG/issues.html (original)
+++ sandbox/committee/LWG/issues.html 2007-12-14 13:38:36 EST (Fri, 14 Dec 2007)
@@ -202,11 +202,11 @@
Instad of
"are required to", use "shall". </p>
<p>✔ (16) 23. [thread.timedmutex.requirements] (30.3.2): see 14, 16 </p>
-<p>24. [thread.timedmutex.requirements] (30.3.2), effects clause: "If the
+<p>✎ 24. [thread.timedmutex.requirements] (30.3.2), effects clause: "If the
indicated time duration is less than or equal to 0, the function still
attempts to obtain ownership without blocking" change "indicated" to
"requested" and remove "still". </p>
-<p>25. [thread.timedmutex.requirements] (30.3.2), effects clause: "If the
+<p>✎ 25. [thread.timedmutex.requirements] (30.3.2), effects clause: "If the
function returns within the specified time duration, it shall have
obtained
ownership." This sentence is awkward. I'd phrase it "The function
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@
of the
mutex object." And even then, functions don't own mutex objects.
Threads do. </p>
-<p>26. [thread.timedmutex.requirements] (30.3.2), effects clause for
+<p>✎ 26. [thread.timedmutex.requirements] (30.3.2), effects clause for
timed_lock:
see 24 ("still"), 25. </p>
<p>✎ (19), ✎ (20) 27. [thread.timedmutex.class] (30.3.2.1): see 19, 20. </p>
Modified: sandbox/committee/LWG/thread_library.html
==============================================================================
--- sandbox/committee/LWG/thread_library.html (original)
+++ sandbox/committee/LWG/thread_library.html 2007-12-14 13:38:36 EST (Fri, 14 Dec 2007)
@@ -1588,13 +1588,13 @@
<dt>Effects:</dt>
<dd>
-The function attempts to obtain ownership of the mutex
-within the specified time.
-If the indicated time duration is less than or equal to <code>0</code>,
-the function still attempts to obtain ownership without
-blocking (as if by calling <code>try_lock()</code>).
-If the function returns within the specified time duration,
-it shall have obtained ownership.
+The function attempts to obtain ownership of the mutex within the <code>rel_time</code>
+time duration.
+If the <code>rel_time</code> time duration is less than or equal to <code>0</code>,
+the function attempts to obtain ownership without
+blocking (as if by calling <code>try_lock()</code>). The function shall return
+within the <code>rel_time</code> time duration only if is has obtained ownership
+of the mutex object.
[<i>Note:</i>
As with <code>try_lock()</code>,
there is no guarantee that ownership will be obtained
@@ -1637,12 +1637,12 @@
<dt>Effects:</dt>
<dd>
-The function attempts to obtain ownership of the mutex by the specified time.
-If the indicated time has already passed,
-the function still attempts to obtain ownership
+The function attempts to obtain ownership of the mutex by the <code>abs_time</code>
+absolute time. If <code>abs_time</code> has already passed,
+the function attempts to obtain ownership
without blocking (as if by calling <code>try_lock()</code>).
-If the function returns by the specified time,
-it shall have obtained ownership.
+The function shall return by the <code>abs_time</code> absolute time only if is
+has obtained ownership of the mutex object.
[<i>Note:</i>
As with <code>try_lock()</code>,
there is no guarantee that ownership will be obtained
Boost-Commit list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk