Re: [Boost-Users] Re: boost::mutex::scoped_lock conventions

From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-14 10:55:40

Alexander Terekhov said:
>
> "William E. Kempf" wrote:
> [...]
>> means short blocks, even if artificial.  Short code blocks combined
>> with the need to carefully analyze synchronization leads to little
>> chance of making the mistake you illustrate.
>
> But explicit unlocking (also "RAII" based) sometimes IS "needed".

No one claimed otherwise.

-- 
William E. Kempf