queue container?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:35:32 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr at gmx.ch> wrote:

> On 10/26/2011 04:36 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:13:06 -0400, Gor Gyolchanyan
>> <gor.f.gyolchanyan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It should have both shared and unshared implementations of methods to
>>> be a full-fledged container.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not.
>>
>> I'm reluctant to add a copy of all functions to the containers just to
>> support shared. We don't have a const or inout equivalent for shared.
>>
>
> Copying all the methods and marking them with shared does not make the  
> code thread safe. The shared and unshared versions would have to be  
> different anyways. There is no way do get something that relates to  
> shared/unshared as const does to mutable/immutable.

You would mark them shared and synchronized.  The shared modifier  
guarantees you don't put unshared data into the container, and the  
synchronized modifier guarantees you don't violate thread safety (as far  
as container topology is concerned at least).

But the method content would be identical.

-Steve