From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-08 10:28:54
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Michael Glassford wrote:
>>I agree that movable locks should wait. However, what about something
>>like this, which doesn't require movable locks (concept only--there
>>are probably errors):
> Looks like Comeau in strict mode would still not accept it; noncopyable
> objects cannot be copy-initialized. But let's get back to my original
See the code I posted with my movable lock. It is noncopyable but you
can return it from a function and use copy-initialization so you can
declare your locks in an "if" statement. It compiles with Comeau strict.
> One might argue that a lock is naturally moveable... but I think that
> we should constrain ourselves to (fixing) the current noncopyable
> scoped_lock idiom.
Should we consider alternate designs only after the fixed scoped_lock
has achieved wide acceptance? After it has been proposed for
standardization? After it has been accepted? If you're talking about
making breaking changes to the threading library (aren't you?), isn't
the time to consider alternate designs now?
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk