From: ulrich.eckhardt@dominolaser.com   
      
   Chris M. Thomasson wrote:   
   > AFAICT, the recursive locking of the mutex is most definitely "intended";   
   > how else does one explain the following function's:   
   > ____________________________________________________________   
   >     bool empty() const   
   >     {   
   >         boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(the_mutex);   
   >         return the_queue.empty();   
   >     }   
   >   
   >     bool try_pop(Data& popped_value)   
   >     {   
   >         boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(the_mutex);   
   >         if(the_queue.empty())   
   >         {   
   >             return false;   
   >         }   
   >   
   >         popped_value=the_queue.front();   
   >         the_queue.pop();   
   >         return true;   
   >     }   
   > ____________________________________________________________   
   >   
   >   
   > AFAICT, `try_pop()' does lock the mutex twice...    ;^o   
      
   It does check if the queue is empty, but it doesn't use its memberfunction   
   for that but directly accesses the internal container. So no, it doesn't.   
      
   Or am I missing something?   
      
   Uli   
      
   --   
   Domino Laser GmbH   
   Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932   
      
      
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)