667
Subj : Re: Thoughts about threads in C++
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Jomu
Date : Sat Apr 30 2005 11:49 am

Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jomu wrote:
>
> >>No. I do not want the "lock" regions and friends. I want explicit
> >>objects on which threads can synchronize by calling their methods.
> >
> > Mutex
> >
> >>and convar are obvious in this approach.
> >
> >
> >   They are not, and for one very simple reason - with "lock" and
> > friends you have implicit finalization of "lock" section.
Programmers
> > do not have to count their locks and match them with their unlocks
if
> > you add this in your syntax. This is more important than do you or
do
> > you not know/have/use thread id or how do you "join" your threads.
>
> I thought that I wrote about *RAII* handlers for the synchronization
> objects, like Boost's mutex::lock.
>
> <checking again if it is mentioned there>
>
> It is there. You certainly skipped the "Library support" part.

  It is maybe because of me "not talking C++" here that I am not
understood well. You can improvise one thing one way, another thing
another way. You plan to use one add-on to do locking, and create
another to define concurrency. In my book, this mixup is not good
design technique.

....
>
>
> >   You don't need POSIX for this on most platforms :).
>
> I know, but implementability in terms of POSIX means that it is
nothing
> really esotheric.

  All is implementable in good old assembly. That means nothing :).

>
> --
> Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/
> Programming    : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/

.

0