[boost] Re: Lock unification [was: Boost.Threads: Do we need all those mutexes?]

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-15 15:52:30

On Jul 15, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Michael Glassford wrote:

> My original intent was to add constructors that
> would make it explicit whether you were asking for a blocking lock, a
> try lock, or a timed lock, and to remove the ambiguity in the try_lock
> constructors (rather arbitrarily, one is blocking, the other
> non-blocking, even though they look just like the lock class
> constructors which both block). There were some who argued against my
> idea and none who supported it, so I dropped the it.

Fwiw, I'm still toying with:

lock(m, not_locked);
lock(m, not_blocked);

(or whatever the spelling was).  I haven't been using that syntax in my 
examples simply because I don't have it coded that way and I try to 
compile my example code before I post it (at least usually).  Anyway, 
I'm personally not ready to drop the enum set you proposed, or at least 
a subset of it.

There's a lot of stuff that's been proposed.  Perhaps we need competing 
implementations that can be played with (as opposed to just competing 
designs).

-Howard