From: Roland Schwarz (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-06 08:08:25
Matt Hurd wrote:
>Not if you take my later suggestion of requiring the mutex type to be embedded
>within the condition var as there is usually only a specific mutex that will
>work with the condvar.
>This prevents the problem of using the wrong mutex type.
Hmm, a condition currently cannot be explicitely bound to
a mutex type. This happens implicitely via a lock, which in
turn is built upon recursive- or unspecified-locking strategy
We currently do not even have non-recursive locking do we?
What I was trying to say is, if we want (and I think we should)
consistent default locking behaviour we either should have
non-recursive or as it is now unspecified.
Or do you mean you will try to somehow require the condition
to be implicitely bound to a unspecified-locking behaviour