Re: [boost] Re: Lock unification

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-16 06:10:38

Eric Niebler wrote:
> 
> I continue to believe that a better interface for a unified lock
> involves descriptively named helper functions:
> 
> scoped_lock l1( m );                 // lock unconditionally
> scoped_lock l1 = defer_lock( m );    // don't lock
> scoped_lock l2 = try_lock( m );      // try lock
> scoped_lock l3 = timed_lock( m, t ); // timed lock

Maybe. Do you have a sketch of the specification? (Not the implementation.)