From: jsiek_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-08-22 14:07:45
William Kempf writes:
> I think you're jumping to conclusions. There may be a way to code
> the lock_pointer using the MutexLock (I'd bet there is, I just
The only way I see is to dynamically allocate the lock object, which
is something we were thinking about disallowing.
> haven't worked on it yet). Even if not, all that's really needed is
> to make the lock_pointer a friend of the Mutex, the same as is done
> for the MutexLock. I see no reason to expose the lock/unlock methods
> of the mutex on the public interface.
That might work... though this could be a slippery slope, where the
friend list inside the mutex classes keeps growing and growing...
Cheers,
Jeremy