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

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-25 12:22:14

From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> 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 |=

Actually, that's what Howard's pseudo-code syntax meant.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;