Re: [boost] Re: Lock unification [move]

From: Bronek Kozicki (brok_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-19 09:13:21

Peter Dimov wrote:
> I mostly agree with Bronek Kozicki.

Thank you :)

> I disagree that
>
>     void * mutex() const;
>
> is a better mutex() accessor. On the contrary, I'd argue that mutex()
> should return a non-const mutex_type. A const return doesn't make a
> lot of sense given that our mutexes have no const member functions;
> the private interface is a better protection than the const.

good point.

> On the
> other hand, a non-const return allows the client to use scoped_lock<>
> on user-defined mutex types (in implementing the user-defined
> condition::wait, for example).

another good point. But then, I think that mutex() should be non-const
in order to make it clear that owned mutex might be modified, and we
should have another const member function just for one purpose - test if
two locks are for the same mutex:

template <typename Lock>
bool same_mutex(const Lock&) const;

or maybe just:

bool same_mutex(const base_lock_class& ) const;

or maybe (???) overloaded operator==

Incidentally I think that function same_mutex could be considered as one
of two (besides "bool locked() const;") publicly available members of
base_lock_class. I'm not sure that it's good idea, but maybe it's worth
consideration. Locks do not have to be polymorphic (as in OOP) in order
to provide this functionality, but still it will bring some extra cost.

B.