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

From: Glen Knowles (gknowles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-21 19:21:41

> From: Howard Hinnant [mailto:hinnant_at_[hidden]] 
> > I mostly agree with Bronek Kozicki. Given a movable lock, Eric 
> > Niebler's
> > proposal:
> >
> >     scoped_lock try_lock( Mutex & m );
> >     scoped_lock timed_lock( Mutex & m );
> >
> > is a better try/timed interface. Heisenberg constructors must die.
> 
> Sorry, I don't know what a Heisenberg constructor is.

It's a reference to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Constructors that
sometimes act one way and sometimes another must die. ;)

> From: David Abrahams [mailto:dave_at_[hidden]] 
> Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> > scoped_lock lk1(m, defer_lock);  // not locked
>          ^^^^              ^^^^
> Redundant.  "deferred" is better.

If you named it not_locked you wouldn't need the comment. ;)

Of these three choices:

1. try, deferred
2. try_lock, deferred
3. try_lock, defer_lock

I tend to like #3 the best.

Glen