From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-25 18:35:13
Batov, Vladimir wrote:
> With all due respect I am not sure that the additional complexity you
> are proposing is justified. It appears that the differences in lock and
> try_lock default constructors' behavior are consistent with other
> libraries and actually feel intuitive and natural to me. After all, it
> is reflected in what I do -- with lock I try until I succeed (that is
> [Batov, Vladimir] the lock blocks until succeeds), with try_lock I try
> once and may fail (that is it unconditionally falls through for me to
> check the result).
Part of the point, though, is that try_lock doesn't actually work that
way: one of the try_lock constructors does a non-blocking try_lock(),
and the other does a blocking lock(). Without looking, do you always
remember which one does which? I don't.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk