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