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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-23 07:00:07

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 ;-)

I like scoped_lock because of:

    scoped_lock<> lock( m );

I prefer to be able to name the lock variable 'lock' instead of 'lk'.