From: Levente Farkas (lfarkas_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-14 10:36:41
William Kempf wrote:
>
> --- In boost_at_[hidden], Levente Farkas <lfarkas_at_m...> wrote:
> > William Kempf wrote:
> > > > create the lock on the heap can't help here.
> > >
> > > And why not?
> >
> > since you can't protect a.next() in that way.
>
> Why not?
{
boost::lock* lock = new boost::lock(m);
for (int i = a.get(); i < 100; a.next())
{
<some code>
delete lock;
f();
lock = new boost::lock(m);
<some code>
}
delete lock;
}
since you can do it just the following way, but this code create 100 lock
(for safety:-()
ps. anyway I can agree with csaba, if we don't have lock/unlock on mutex at
least we need it on lock (yes this is the unsafe_lock and we loose compile
time check and...almost everything safe, but the exception safety).
-- Levente
"The only thing worse than not knowing the truth is
ruining the bliss of ignorance."