29 Jun
2004
29 Jun
'04
3:45 p.m.
On Tuesday 29 June 2004 10:21 am, David Abrahams wrote:
Doug Gregor <dgregor@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
Right, so what we have (I think) are reasonably well-designed classes with incorrectly specified concepts. scoped_lock should really lock; try_lock should just try to lock.
I don't understand; are you addressing the concept problem above? scoped_lock refers to a class, right?
No and yes :) At this point, we know that the concepts are inconsistent with the code. I'm just saying that the concepts are wrong, and that the existing semantics of the classes scoped_lock and try_lock (actually, it's called scoped_try_lock) are the correct ones. Doug