From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-20 08:30:00
From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Doesn't that argue for the case of making the "key" that
> > indicates that the lock should be "non-locking" more explicit
> > than a bool? IOW, if one is rarely going to write
> > "scoped_lock(m, false)," then the meaning of "false" is even more
> > obscure and "non_locking" is even more appropriate.
> "non_locking" is a terribly obscure name to associate with a lock. I
> really think "deferred" works well.
I can't disagree. I was just using the name already being
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk