On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, David Reid wrote: > Are we not using it as we haven't come across the case where we need it yet? > If that's the case then I'll remove my +1 but from the note it looked as if > we just weren't ever using it.
We aren't using the type parameter because nobody has had the time to implement the read/write locks. There should be a note about this someplace, but it may not be there anymore. We definately need a way to specify a read/write lock, but it is very low on the priority list, at least it is for me. Ryan > > david > > > @@ -62,7 +62,13 @@ > > - It ignores the "type" parameter, so toss it. > > - The fname param is allowed to be NULL on the Unix platform. > > Change it to always use the passed value, and check callers. > > + rbb says: The type parameter is supposed to be used to > determine > > + if we are working with a read/write lock or a > mutex. > > + The fname parameter is essentially required if you > > + want to be portable, but I dislike wasting cycles > to > > + outsmart the programmer. > > Status: david +1 > > + rbb -1 > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
