Re: [boost] Re: Lock unification [move]

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-22 12:20:30

From: Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
> 
> Oh, I just remembered another reason I chose defer_lock over deferred.  
> I was trying to be symmetric with the try-counterpart:
> 
> scoped_lock lk1(m, defer_lock);
> scoped_lock lk2(m, try_lock);
> 
> vs:
> 
> scoped_lock lk1(m, deferred);
> scoped_lock lk2(m, tried);
> 
> <shrug>  I disliked "tried" more than I liked "deferred".  And I also 
> felt that the benefit of symmetry was important to make the interface 
> easier to learn.

Actually, I think "deferred" and "tried" are better.  The reason
is that they say that locking of a lock so constructed was
"deferred" or "tried."  The latter doesn't indicate whether the
attempt to lock succeeded, just that there was an attempt.

From: Michael Glassford <glassfordm_at_[hidden]>
> 
> Another possibility is to name the second parameter as an adjective 
> describing the initial state of the lock instead of a verb:
> 
> scoped_lock l(m, unlocked);

This, seems even better; it's at least easier to explain!

scoped_lock lk1(m, unlocked);
scoped_lock lk2(m, tried);

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;