Gennadiy Rozental wrote: > 1. Does not Boost.Thread already have locking mechanisms > 2. IMO any locking mechanisms should be implemented in terms of smart_ptr
I don't see the fundamental connection between locking and smart pointers. In particular, which smart_ptr are we talking about? shared_ptr [which may need locking internally for reference count anyway] or shared_ptr? Why should locks be dynamic rather than stack allocated at all? I'd have though stack-allocation far more intuitive? -- AlisdairM _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
