1. Oh, c'mon, I never implied that your design was "dubious and likely incorrect". It was said in the context of operator[] for std:list. 2. IMHO for a library to be accepted, embraced, popular, survive it has to be suitable/convenient/intuitive for 80% of the users. The library should not go out of its way to satisfy esoteric requirements of 20% at the expense of clarity/simplicity/good design. Or example, std:auto_ptr is not for everyone and not always work where I'd like it to work. It does not mean std::auto_ptr needs to sacrifice its efficient and minimalistic beauty to make me happy. Getting back to Boost.Threads I'd still like to see a compelling example where I'd need to declare try_lock but twist its intuitive functionality into behaving like scoped_lock (that is blocking until locked). -----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Matt Hurd Sent: Wednesday, 30 June 2004 10:42 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads: Do we need all those mutexes? On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:17:04 +1000, Batov, Vladimir <vladimir.batov@ca.com> wrote:
Why give the user an alternative with is dubious and likely incorrect?
It is a pattern of need for multithreaded programming where I work to require single and multithreaded awareness for objects where performance excludes the option of using separate object instances. I don't think the design is dubious or incorrect it is mandated by the business requirements. Though most of my designs usually are incorrect or dubious ;-) I just call those tactical :-) matt. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost