Re: [boost] Re: Lock unification

From: Matt Hurd (matt.hurd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-15 19:05:15

> Eric Niebler wrote:
> > David Abrahams wrote:
> >> BTW, it just occurred to me that
<snip> 
> On second thought, I think it's too subtle. You can detect literal zero,
> but you can't detect (at compile-time) an int with a value of zero. I'm
> not comfortable with this:
> 
>    scoped_lock l(m, 0);
> 
> meaning something different than:
> 
>    int t = 0;
>    scoped_lock l(m, t);
> 
> Perhaps it's really OK because the effect is the same, but the fact that
> they would execute different code paths sets off bells in my head.

Perhaps the interface should be
    lock lk<0>(m);
    lock lk<33>(m);
    lock lk(m);
to support specialization of zero.

I can see a case for allowing both to allow run-time discrimination...
needs more thought.

Matt Hurd.