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
> 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
Same here. I intend to add them in soon.
-- 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