[boost] Re: Boost.Threads proposed change: lock constructors

From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-25 18:35:13

Batov, Vladimir wrote:

> Mike,
> 
> 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.

Mike