Re: boost::mutex::scoped_lock conventions

From: Alexander Terekhov (yg-boost-users_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-15 05:33:11

"William E. Kempf" wrote:
> 
> 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.

Yeah. The intent was to show the usage if "release_guard"... and 
to give you just one more hint with respect to currently missing 
functionality (sync) in boost::~condition(). Well, it didn't seem 
to work. OK, <http://tinyurl.com/btdd> -- please read the message 
5213... starting at <quote>We later "adjusted"...</quote>. Thank
you.

regards,
alexander.

--
Pro-"pthread_null/compare/hash" lobbying association.