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

From: Matt Hurd (matt.hurd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-22 18:30:39

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:22:48 +0200, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Hurd wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:31:18 +1000, Batov, Vladimir
> > <vladimir.batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > How 'bout
> > >
> > > scoped_lock lk1(m, defer);
> > > scoped_lock lk2(m, try);
> >
> > no comment except that perhaps scoped_lock can be dropped for just
> > lock.  scoped_lock seems so twentieth century ;-)
> 
> Yeah. And I'm sick and tired of all these "lock" verbs and nouns.
> 
> guard g1(m, disengaged);
> guard g2(m, try_engage);
> 
> Oder? ;-)
> 
> regards,
> alexander.

a mutex is often referred to as a guard and having a lock called a
guard is not ideal IMO.

however guard g(m, attack) for a spin lock is attractive :-)

matt.