Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!xurilka!ouij
From: ouij@xurilka.UUCP (exhausted jazz surfer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Pre and Post actions - an idea.
Keywords: Capsules C++
Message-ID: <131@xurilka.UUCP>
Date: 5 May 90 01:42:27 GMT
References: <1990May4.195250.9662@xavax.com>
Organization: Church Of Surfing Anarchists
Lines: 58

In article <1990May4.195250.9662@xavax.com> jat@xavax.com (John Tamplin) writes:
>In article <263BF5E3.16516@paris.ics.uci.edu> rfg@paris.ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette) writes:
>...
>>Note that in the class `foo' shown above, the member function member_2 is
>>preceded by a new keyword, i.e. "exempt".  In the scheme proposed here, a
>>call to a member function declared as "exempt" would cause the normal
>>(implicit) pre and/or post member function invocations to be suppressed
>>for that member function only.
>>
[stuff deleted]
>
>The problem with this is that there is no way to implement something like
>the normal readers/writers solution:  n readers with no writers or 1 writer
>with no readers.  To do that you need to know which member function is
>being called, and for other solutions you might even need to know the
>arguments.  It is simple to put a call to lock() and unlock() around the
>body of a member function in the simple case and for more complicated cases
>you need special code for each member function anyway.

>
>I have not seen the Capsule stuff myself, but from the short except given
>before I would agree that it adds too much fluff for not enough functionality.
>The par section appears to provide enough functionality for readers and
>writers, but I don't see a clean way to extend the syntax to more difficult
>problems.

I ,repeat, the capsules stuff is not intended as an extension
to C++.  Nor should of it been brought up in this newsgroup.

It is a new feature about to be added to Concurrent C++.
We have no intention of modifying C++, that is left to its prophet
and/or  ansi committe.

>Another problem is you don't get to specify whether you want 
>gated service, prioritized service, or what kind of fairness guarantees you
>want.

not true.  

Before people continue making rash judgments about Capsules 
considering that only a snippet was presented, get a copy of
the paper ``Capsules: A shared memory mechanism'' [gehani 88]
and lets  move the discussion  out this group. 

Now back to our regularly scheduled newgroup.


>John Tamplin						Xavax
>jat@xavax.COM						2804 S Memorial Parkway
>...!uunet!xavax!jat					Huntsville, AL 35801


Ouij
----

Luigi Perrotta (sometimes) 				(514) 278 1837		
Ubangi Research Inc	info-ccc-request@xurilka.UUCP
uunet!xurilka!ouij 				Concurrent C/C++ mailing list