Re: [boost] boost] [thread] Interest in a locking pointer and lockable concept

From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-03 09:54:24

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 02 April 2008 16:50 pm, klaus triendl wrote:
> Frank Mori Hess schrieb:
> > Incidentally, I find the example usage of lock acquirers in the
> > thread_lockable examples a bit verbose and dangerous.  That is stuff
> > like:
> >
> > mbox::writelock_acquirer<mutexlockable_int> int_lock(*pLockableInt);
> > int& i = access_acquiree(int_lock);
> > i = 5;
> >
> > Why not just support operator* (and operator-> for calling class methods)
> > on the lock_acquirer class?  Then you could do something like:
>
> I like the less verbose method with operator*... the intent is to force
> a named lvalue lock_acquirer object.
>
> > mbox::writelock_acquirer<mutexlockable_int> int_lock(*pLockableInt);
> > *int_lock = 5;
>
> But what prevents me from writing:
> int& i = *int_lock;

Nothing, it just makes it less tempting to do so.  You only need to add one 
character (the asterisk) to get a reference from the lock_acquirer directly.  
Presumably, the only reason you were creating the reference before was 
because it was more convenient to write 

i = 5;

than

access_acquiree(int_lock) = 5;

- -- 
Frank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH9OGU5vihyNWuA4URAp8DAJ0fNWckUD0ADjUfmvuS1qe8KAaJgACgkplz
mHOSapSE19SN4rY0YsFGPeQ=
=EYOn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----