Re: Container reqs

["Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>]

Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:QEiz7.32911$ev2.39789@www.newsranger.com...
>
> Well, as long as some kind of task-safe queue/stack is available, that's
> probably fair enough.
>

I see two things that are of interest:
1. Synchronisation Abstractions (like barriers, blackboards etc.). These are
interesting, but are more involved than simply being protected versions of
containers. Burns's book has interesting stuff (I think someone (Pascal?)
has it online somewhere).
These are important, but are not in the mainstream for the container
library. They should be considered seperately.

2. Protected versions of regular containers.
I am not sure how crucial this is to anyone.
I can survive without this being part of the library.

(Notice that it is possible to write wrappers that can take something that
supports a give  interface, and create a protected version. This is nice,
and can be done seperately. Manage complexity!)

Ehud