Re: [Threads-devel] TimedLockable versus SharedLockable relative timed locks

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-09 15:14:32

Quoting Frank Mori Hess <frank.hess_at_[hidden]>:

> 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()?

Only that I didn't add it in time for the branch for release.

> 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.

Same here. I intend to add them in soon.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams            | Just Software Solutions Ltd
Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL