Beman Dawes wrote:
Anthony Williams wrote:
"Phil Endecott" <spam_from_boost_dev@chezphil.org> writes:
Anthony Williams wrote:
One principle behind the new lock templates is that it should be easy to incorporate new mutex and lock types, and they will still work with the existing facilities (e.g. condition_variable_any). Hi Anthony,
Can you clarify what you mean by that please? Are you saying that if I have a new mutex (e.g. my futex implementation) I should be able to use it with the existing condition_variable_any? (Is that what the "_any" means?) If that's true I'm impressed; I thought that it was necessary to have some sort of atomic unlock-A-and-lock-B method to do that. Yes, that's what I meant, and that's what the _any means (as opposed to condition_variable which only works with unique_lock<mutex> (also known as mutex::scoped_lock)).
I'm not totally enthralled by the condition_variable_any name. If someone has a suggestion for a more meaningful name, now is a good time to speak up.
I wonder why not making condition_variable a template with a mutex type in its template parameter. We could specialize it on the boost::mutex type to have the current optimized condition_variable implementation and leave it implemented as condition_variable_any for a general case.