[boost] Re: Lock unification [move]

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-21 19:30:55

On Jul 21, 2004, at 7:16 PM, David Abrahams wrote:

> Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> <nod>  How's:
>>
>> scoped_lock lk1(m, defer_lock);  // not locked
>          ^^^^              ^^^^
>
> Redundant.  "deferred" is better.

I seriously thought about deferred.  The word, whatever it is, if 
standardized, would be at namespace scope in namespace std.  I was 
worried about it conflicting, or with its use not being easily 
associated with locks if it was just "deferred".  Otoh, it is only a 
tag.  Maybe it is a feature, not a bug for "deferred" to be able to 
influence (conflict with) things other than locks!  Thanks for the 
second thought.

-Howard