Boost logo

Boost :

From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-25 15:04:13

No comments? Perhaps my original message is too long or too abstract.
Let me summarize.

For the reasons mentioned in my original post (primarily fixing
inconsistencies and unintuitive behavior), I propose changing:

1: explicit scoped_lock(Mutex& mx, bool initially_locked=true)
2: explicit scoped_try_lock(TryMutex& mx)
3: scoped_try_lock(TryMutex& mx, bool initially_locked)
4: scoped_timed_lock(TimedMutex& mx, bool initially_locked)


1: explicit scoped_lock(Mutex& mx, lock_state initial_state=LOCK)
2: scoped_try_lock(TryMutex& mx, blocking_mode blocking)
3: scoped_try_lock(TryMutex& mx, lock_state initial_state, blocking_mode
4: scoped_timed_lock(TimedMutex& mx, lock_state initial_state)

where lock_state is defined something like this:

     namespace lock_state {
         typedef enum
         } lock_state;

and blocking_mode is defined something like this:

     namespace blocking_mode {
         typedef enum
         } blocking_mode;


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at