From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-07 11:38:58
David Abrahams wrote:
> Michael Glassford <glassfordm_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>The point being that TryLock is a refinement of Lock, and TimedLock is
>>a refinement of TryLock? If so, I agree that's better than TryLock and
>>TimedLock both refining Lock. There are still the constructor issues
>>to deal with in such a lock taxonomy, however. The main one: how do
>>you define destructors that are consistent within a lock concept and
>>also consistent between concepts. E.g., on the one hand it seems that
>>a one-parameter constructor should do the same thing in all lock
>>types--so it would have to block; on the other hand, it seems that
>>TryLock constructors should not block unless instructed to do
> One possible answer is that construction protocol simply isn't part
> of the concept taxonomy.
> Another possible answer might lie in considering syntax alternatives
> for lock construction. For example, a named parameter interface:
> Lock l(block = m);
> TryLock l(block = m);
> TryLock l(proceed = m);
> TimedLock l(wait = m, t);
> That particular expression of the idea is probably too cute,
It is an interesting idea, though.
> but I'm just trying to expand the boundaries of thought.
I appreciate that; I've been trying to think of alternatives, but hadn't
considered named parameters.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk