From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-05 04:20:32
"Hurd, Matthew" <hurdm_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > On Behalf Of Michael Glassford
> > * Rename to improve consistency and eliminate abbreviations:
> > Use "read" and "write" instead of "shared" and "exclusive".
> Just a quick note from the bike shop. I've always had an issue with
> rw/read/write as this is a common use case rather than
> which is the real deal.
> Going along these lines I think rw_mutex is a bad name, though I
> it is commonly understood.
> The oxymoron shareable_mutex or something other shorter name would
> me happier.
I agree that shared/exclusive are more general terms than read/write.
I stuck with read/write for now for several not very weighty reasons:
1) AFAIK, that's the common, accepted terminology for this type of
mutex; 2) that's the terminology most of the library was already
using; 3) some names didn't seem to convert conveniently to the
shared/exclusive terminolgy; 4) using read/write seems to result in
shorter names. I'm not stuck on a particular terminology, however;
what I care about is that it's consistent (not read/write in some
places and shared/exclusive in others, which is how it was before).
In other words, I'm open to renaming suggestions. Here's a list of
currently used names that any naming proposal would need to address:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk