Re: Questions

[David Durham]

Furthermore,
ost::Mutex has EnterMutex() and LeaveMutex()

I mean, you enter and leave a critical section, but you lock and unlock 
a mutex...   ThreadLock seemed to have it right there... Am I wrong here? :)


I'm a stickler for names, myself.... I can't explain it, but I think 
things should always be named most appropriately...

-- Davy

David Sugar wrote:

> 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.