[boost] Re: Lock unification [move]

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-22 07:30:45

On Jul 21, 2004, at 8:30 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote:

> 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.

Oh, I just remembered another reason I chose defer_lock over deferred.  
I was trying to be symmetric with the try-counterpart:

scoped_lock lk1(m, defer_lock);
scoped_lock lk2(m, try_lock);

vs:

scoped_lock lk1(m, deferred);
scoped_lock lk2(m, tried);

<shrug>  I disliked "tried" more than I liked "deferred".  And I also 
felt that the benefit of symmetry was important to make the interface 
easier to learn.

-Howard