From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-25 20:04:58
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> 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
> Hm. What is it that makes 'lock' not qualify as a role?
Well, OK, it's a role at a very low level of abstraction. Something
more like "access_foo" for some mutex-protected resource "foo" might
be better. For that matter, unlock() maybe ought to be release().
Hmm, a smart-pointerish model has some appeal for me. They are our
canonical resource managers.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk