Subj : Re: Lockable objects
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Uenal Mutlu
Date : Fri May 20 2005 12:06 am

"Torsten Robitzki" wrote
> Uenal Mutlu wrote:
> >
> > As I told you: A-U-T-O-M-A-T-I-O-N-!-!-!
>
> Did you? If a tool can make any difference out of std::pair<mutex,
> std::vector<fool> > and mutlu::vector<fool> than due to the fact that
> the second container class is into the mutlu namespace.
>
> Is this what you have in mind?
>
> > If it is documented then you, and any other object, knows the object has
> > these synchronization members.
>
> I'm not an object of yours kind. I'm not a robot!
>
> With the same argumentation you can stuff in everything but the kitchen
> sink into an object. Would that convince you?
>
>  > You, and any other object, can see
> > whether it is safe to change the object or not.
>
> Huh? Silly robot! It might be save to change the state of an object now.
> But what will tell you this about the state of you application. Do
> yourself a favour and read again everything David Schwartz told you. He
> did a great afford to explain you what you should know about the basics.
>
> > In your approach nobody knows of your standalone mutex, whether
> > if it exists or not, and for what purpose. This is not the case with an
> > integrated mutex.
>
> Can you elaborate on the protocol you have in mind that will make the
> difference? As for now you just introduced just a mutex with every "not
> trivial" object.

Hello, excuse me but you are IMO too stupid to discuss such issues.
Please do me a favour and don't steal my time.

.