Boost logo

Boost :

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-15 15:52:30

On Jul 15, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Michael Glassford wrote:

> My original intent was to add constructors that
> would make it explicit whether you were asking for a blocking lock, a
> try lock, or a timed lock, and to remove the ambiguity in the try_lock
> constructors (rather arbitrarily, one is blocking, the other
> non-blocking, even though they look just like the lock class
> constructors which both block). There were some who argued against my
> idea and none who supported it, so I dropped the it.

Fwiw, I'm still toying with:

lock(m, not_locked);
lock(m, not_blocked);

(or whatever the spelling was). I haven't been using that syntax in my
examples simply because I don't have it coded that way and I try to
compile my example code before I post it (at least usually). Anyway,
I'm personally not ready to drop the enum set you proposed, or at least
a subset of it.

There's a lot of stuff that's been proposed. Perhaps we need competing
implementations that can be played with (as opposed to just competing


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