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.
_______________________________________________
Bug-commoncpp mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp