Timeline for Automatic RAII wrapper for concurrent access
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2019 at 16:24 | answer | added | T.C. | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 25, 2019 at 15:47 | answer | added | paler123 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 24, 2019 at 12:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCodeReview/status/1088406263669682177 | ||
| Jan 24, 2019 at 8:26 | comment | added | papagaga | It looks fine! It might very well have been fine since the beginning, but the wording was misleading. | |
| Jan 24, 2019 at 8:18 | comment | added | gudvinr |
@papagaga is it ok now? I changed description a little so it shouldn't be inappropriate anymore. Though I don't want to remove parts of the code (lock_guard still can be used as _TMutLock but just not with std::mutex)
|
|
| Jan 24, 2019 at 8:06 | history | edited | gudvinr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 33 characters in body
|
| Jan 24, 2019 at 7:48 | comment | added | gudvinr | Well, I'm aware about that and did mention that main purpose was to provide interface for separate locking so it works as expected if you take it into consideration. Otherwise it may be frustrating if I just remove that comment and that note. | |
| Jan 24, 2019 at 7:41 | comment | added | papagaga |
> but latter (like std::lock_guard) doesn't work due to equality of _TLock and _TMutLock.. Codereview is about reviewing working code, not fixing broken / incomplete code. Your comments mention std::lock_guard ( /* For types that aren't move constructible e.g. std::lock_guard*/) as a feature, and then you say it isn't working in your text. You should edit your code to retain only what's working (edit it before you get an answer).
|
|
| Jan 23, 2019 at 21:15 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 24, 2019 at 5:11 | |||||
| Jan 23, 2019 at 21:13 | history | asked | gudvinr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |