On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 8:05 PM Phil Bouchard <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/1/23 12:26, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
> > If you want "more positive feedback", you should strive not to come to
> > a fact-fight unarmed.
>
> A generic solution is right here and it solves exactly the problem I was
> raising:
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p0290r4.html
>
> That basically proves again your negative evaluation of everything was
> in vain. Honestly there's a thin line between trolling and your comments
> to my regards for some reason.

"Someone suggested a thing that is vaguely similar to what I
suggested" is not the same thing as suggesting that thing. Note that
the proposal in question explicitly does not put the mutex *inside* of
the object. Nor does it have the specific issues we've been discussing
here.

There is a difference between not wanting to embed a mutex inside of
an object (which, again, is what you suggested) and not wanting to
have some way to tie objects to mutexes.