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

From: Batov, Vladimir (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-22 17:31:18

How 'bout 

scoped_lock lk1(m, defer);
scoped_lock lk2(m, try);

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of David Abrahams
> Sent: Friday, 23 July 2004 1:15 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: Lock unification [move]
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost