Re: Questions

[David Sugar]

Well, it does seem a strange choice since we dont have a "ThreadMutex". 
Perhaps RWLock would have been better...

David Durham wrote:

> David Sugar wrote:
>
> > Older and poorer compilers have different problems.  For example, if 
> > you define a class foo in a common header that uses STL, and have an 
> > instance of foo in test1.cpp and in test2.cpp, you may have template 
> > generated object code in both test1.o and test2.o even when it has 
> > been subroutined and is identical/duplicate function calls.  Newer 
> > compilers and linkers throw away duplicate code like this.  Then 
> > there was a time not all c++ compilers could compile STL...
> >
> > My mistake, I meant "ThreadLock" when I said RWLock :).  That's why 
> > you can't find it....
> >
> > As for realpath, I think it would have to provide an implimentation 
> > if one is not provided.  realpath is far too useful for enforcing 
> > path restricted access policies.
>
>
> What is the significance of the name 'ThreadLock'... 'RWLock' seems to 
> make much more sense... And there may even be a better term from a CS 
> textbook.