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

From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-15 08:58:15

Alexander Terekhov said:
>
> "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.

I'm going to try this one time.

Say what you mean to say, or don't say anything at all.  Chasing down your
links, especially when you very often post a link to something that only
links to what you're really interested in saying!, is unproductive use of
my (or anyone else's) time.  In this case, I missed the only relevant
point in your posting, because the "release_guard" was hidden in code and
never mentioned in your text.  And there was *NO* mention of the "missing
functionality in boost::~condition()".  If you intended me to find that by
following a wild goose chase of links in your posts, at the very least you
had darn well better tell me what I'll be looking for in that chase.  If
you *really* want to make your case, you'll actually do what everyone else
does, and say what you want to say in your post, rather than ask someone
to go on a wild goose chase, but at this point I'll settle for just being
told what I'm looking for.

-- 
William E. Kempf