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

From: Batov, Vladimir (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-21 21:03:30

Does it have to be in 'std'? Cannot that be under 'scoped_lock'? Do not
have the docs handy. Won't lookup mechanism pick it up?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Howard Hinnant
> Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2004 10:31 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: Lock unification [move]
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost