Re: [sigc] Re: [gtkmm] libsigcx and gtkmm 2.4

[Christer Palm <palm nogui se>]

Daniel Elstner wrote:
> The problem is you need to lock before the data is being written.  And
> mutexes don't ensure that event A happens after event B.  Mutexes ensure
> that read/write A and read/write B don't happen at the same time, _and_
> they issue memory barrier instructions to ensure memory visibility.

Hmm. Perhaps it would be better if you took a look at the code and told 
me where the problem is?

> Remember, we're talking about thread synchronization.  This is not
> something to be taken lightly.  Also note that nobody said that the
> locked data has to be global; you can easily store it in an object
> somewhere appropriate, or even put it into a queue.

I'm not taking it lightly. My point was that although you could 
technically accomplish the same thing without arguments, arguments is a 
pretty useful feature.

If you have similar code in perhaps hundreds of places doing similar 
things, then it would make sense to attempt to make a generic 
implementation of that pattern. Which is exactly what this is about.

--
Christer Palm