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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-24 10:38:03

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>> 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'.
> 
> Suit yourself, but I think variable names should denote roles, not
> types.

Hm. What is it that makes 'lock' not qualify as a role?