Boost logo

Boost :

From: Batov, Vladimir (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-26 17:32:14

> 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.

Well, first, the behavior that I was talking about in my prev. email (ones I was happy about) were the 'basic' constructors (that I called 'default' constructors -- what an embarassment). The following is IMHO good and I would not like see them complicated:

1. scoped_lock l(m); // Blocks until it locks.
2. scoped_lock l(m, true); // As above.
3. scoped_lock l(m, false); // Only declaration. Does nothing. Needed if I need to declare but use it later.
4. try_lock l(m); // Tries to lock. Always falls through. I need to check the result.
5. try_lock l(m, false); // Only declaration. Does nothing.
6. timed_lock l(m, time); // Blocks until locks or 'time' expires.
7. timed_lock l(m, false); // Only declaration. Does nothing.

I have to agree that the following behavior

8. try_lock l(m, true);
9. timed_lock l(m, true);

that according to the documentation call lock() instead of respective try_lock() and timed_lock() look wrong. I'd be temted to say that merely making (8) work as (4) would be sufficient fo fix try_lock. (9) does not appear "fixable" in a similar way.

I am tempted to suggest something similar to overloaded 'operator new':

struct nolock_t {};
nolock_t nolock;

1. scoped_lock l(m);
2. scoped_lock l(m, nolock);
3. try_lock l(m);
4. try_lock l(m, nolock);
5. timed_lock l(m, time);
6. timed_lock l(m, nolock);

It removes redundancy (as with the original scoped_lock(m) and scoped_lock(m, true)) and makes everything simple and consistent.

Just a thought.


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