From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-08 11:41:32
Peter Dimov wrote:
> We _are_ considering alternate designs now. As part of this effort I asked:
>>>>>>This is certainly possible, but I don't see what the additional
>>>>>>complexity buys us.
My apologies. You had directed that statement at one of Mike's designs,
so I didn't think it was directed at mine as well. Let's see ...
1) a reduction in interface complexity.
- one lock class, instead of a scoped_lock, try_lock, timed_lock, etc.
- no bools or enums in constructors; instead, there are clearly
named factory functions for customizing lock construction.
2) You can initialize a lock in the condition of an "if" statement.
3) You can return a lock from a function. (Benefit is debatable.)
That's it, I think.
-- 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