[boost] Re: Lock unification [move]

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-22 10:14:48

Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

You only need part-of-speech symmetry.  "deferred" is an adjective, so
"non_blocking", "optional", "permeable",...  would work find for the
other one, from a grammatical point of view.  I don't think "try"
makes a very good adjective, and adding "_lock" to the end of it
doesn't help.  So I don't see the symmetry in
"try_lock"/"deferred_lock" other than the suffix :vP

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com