On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 16:36 -0400, Alan Conway wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 16:07 -0400, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > ... > > - I'm willing to go along with it, I just happen to think that > > using assert() is better in this case - especially as we have no low > > cost way to do the assertion in any case. > > Confused me with that last sentence - the first part says we should use > assert(), but the second part says we can't?
The point is essentially moot as we don't have a low cost way to test whether a lock is held or not (trylock() as the only way we can currently do it, and it can be expensive ISTR). Being moot apparently didn't stop me sounding off about it anyway :) A
