Re: [boost] Re: Comments on the thread library

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-06 11:00:26

At 11:50 AM 3/26/2001, williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:
 >--- In boost_at_y..., Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_g...> wrote:

 >>  - fast_mutex strikes me as a bad name.  We just killed fast_crc.
 >> What about "unchecked"?
 >
 >There's a lot more to the design of fast_mutex than just it's
 >unchecked locking policy (see my comments on speed below).  I'm not
 >against renaming here, however.  Maybe simple_mutex? (I don't like
 >that either, but...)

How about basic_mutex?

In any case, I think (at least half seriously) we should ban "fast" in 
names.  It is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.  Someone almost 
always comes up with a case where some other approach is faster, and that 
starts a discussion that ends up with the name being changed.

--Beman