From: cristom@charter.net   
      
   "Ulrich Eckhardt"  wrote in message   
   news:vk06k8-cco.ln1@satorlaser.homedns.org...   
   > Chris M. Thomasson wrote:   
   >> AFAICT, the recursive locking of the mutex is most definitely "intended";   
   >> how else does one explain the following function's:   
   >> ____________________________________________________________   
   [...]   
   >> ____________________________________________________________   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> 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?   
      
   You are missing nothing Ulrich; I made a stupid mistake...   
      
   Sorry about that non-sense!   
      
   ^o   
      
      
   --   
         [ 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)