Boost logo

Threads-Devel :

From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-08 17:14:30


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Is there any reason the TimedLockable concept has an overload for timed_lock()
that accepts a relative timeout, but SharedLockable does not have a relative
timeout overload for timed_lock_shared()? And the same question goes for the
classes timed_mutex versus shared_mutex. Actually, the shared_mutex doesn't
seem to have a timed_lock overload for relative time, so it seems to fall
short of fully implementing the TimedLockable concept. This is based only on
reading the docs, I haven't checked the actual code to see if it is any
different.

- --
Frank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH++A35vihyNWuA4URArVqAJ9fmyhZSom1sn5Lg05wGGBTF2XX7QCfeo1M
M71hdkMPXmYZovjmiXAukwM=
=Lbe5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Threads-Devel 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