Boost.Threads - 'lock' name (was Re: Boost.Thread

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-07-18 13:01:59

--- In boost_at_y..., "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov_at_d...> wrote:
> 
> > The name "locker" is just awful.  Guard is tolerable,
> > but doesn't convey the action well.
> 
> how about LockKeeper; similar to DirKeeper from

Only slightly better.  Generally, I find any name that has to be 
turned into a noun by adding "er" to be a bad choice.  Often the 
result is either not a proper English word, or it means something 
totally different than what was meant, or it's just plain ambiguous.  
In this case it's ambiguous.  In order to "keep" a lock there must be 
a lock object, no?  A better name than any suggested so far (other 
than lock, IMHO) would be auto_lock.  I'm just not convinced that we 
should change the name at all.

> > I really don't understand why you find the
> > name "lock" to be bad.
> 
> boost::spinlock lock_;
> ...
> boost::spinlock::lock lock( lock_ );
> 
> is just awful, IMHO.

1) I don't find it to be so awful.
2) I'd prefer to choose a different name for spinlock.
3) I doubt we add a spinlock to Boost.Threads any way.

Bill Kempf