RE: [boost] Boost.Threads Locking Delima

From: Persson Jonas (jonas.persson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-16 14:04:51

> One night while trying to fall asleep my mind drifted to this problem
(yeah, I know what 
> that says about me), and it dawned on me that the standard already has a
solution to a 
> very similar problem.  The std::auto_ptr<> template solves a similar issue
through 
> "ownership" and "move semantics" instead of the more traditional copy
semantics.  This 
> allows you to pass a std::auto_ptr<> out of one "scope" and into another,
passing the 
> ownership and insuring only one "ptr" will ever delete the object.  I
could apply the 
> same technique to the ScopedLock concepts and allow the lock "ownership"
to be exclusive 
> and transferrable.  In many ways this seems like a much better solution
then a 
> lock_operations<> template.  However, there are issues with "move
semantics" that have 
> caused a lot of questions about how to use std::auto_ptr<> correctly, and
these issues 
> would exist here as well.  Also, I'm not 100% sure this solution will
cover all use 
> cases where the ScopedLock is problematic.  So what I'm looking for is
comments on 
> whether or not this solution is viable and/or the solution I should
implement.  Thoughts 
> anyone?

Whats wrong with just using std::auto_ptr<scoped_lock> in these cases?

        / Jonas