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

From: Bronek Kozicki (brok_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-26 08:25:15

Peter Dimov wrote:
>     lock lk( m ); // the original examples
>
> with
>
>     scoped_lock lock( m );

you still need to select mutex type in lock template class, thus above
would rather look something like:
  lock<fast_mutex> lk( m );
or:
  scoped_lock<fast_mutex> lock( m );

Assuming that m is actually "fast_mutex". And you need to know its type
whenever you need to lock it or use such lock.

Alternatively, if we have common base class ...
  class lock_base {/* .... */};
... typedef ...
  typedef const lock_base& lock;
... and number of heloper functions, we could actually write:
  lock lk = sole_acquire(m);
or:
  lock lk = acquire<scoped_lock>(m);

Please note that no mutex type has been selected (hardcoded) above. The
longer I think about such common base, the more I believe that it should
be just abstract class with very simple interface (virtual destructor;
locked() const; operator safe_bool() const calling locked(); bool
same(const lock_base&) const; operator==(const lock_base&, const
lock_base&) calling same; friend operator!=(const lock_base&, const
lock_base&) calling same;). I will provide some prototype implementation
this week.

B.