[boost] Re: Lock unification [move]

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-24 09:50:16

Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> 
>> scoped_lock = move(scoped_lock);
>> scoped_lock |= move(upgradable_lock);    // 1
>
> I like the pipe's suggestion of a wall and, hence, blocking.  The
> x= operators are good, in general, as they still suggest
> assignment (<<= is better than << for that reason).

Problem is that the syntax is illegal.  scoped_lock is a type.  You
can do:

    scoped_lock x(move(my_upgradable_lock),blocking);
    x |= move(my_upgradable_lock);

but that's it.  No constructing new scoped_locks with |=

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