we always implemented semaphore first, then added the mutex wrapper for those who needed it.
then again, the Ada committee saw fit to standardize on rendezvous which can be implemented trivially w/ 2 semaphores, but not the other way 'round.
I've always believed that you made the basics available to others to make their own tools, and convenience wrappers for commonly used things.
I've also never actually _seen_ the implementation of a semaphore with a mutex and a condition variable, and don't readily envision it.
At Wednesday 2003-06-04 08:00, you wrote:
Stefan Seefeld wrote: > > hi there, > > I'v been trying to find some info as to why semaphores > are considered harmful by the boost::thread authors, > without luck. Is there any concise text describing > the problem ?
Well,
http://www.boost.org/libs/thread/doc/faq.html#question10
> > I'v been using semaphores for years and can't think of > what should be wrong with it.
http://google.com/groups?threadm=3CEB6073.ACBCFD17%40web.de http://google.com/groups?threadm=c29b5e33.0202011147.98b216e%40posting.google.com
regards, alexander.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
