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);
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk