Re: [boost] [thread] Roadmap for RW locks ?

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-02 11:05:33

Howard Hinnant wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Anthony Williams wrote:
> 
>> Your sample adaptor has given me the idea of not having an explicit  
>> timed_lock
>> function, but rather overloads of try_lock:
>>
>> bool try_lock(); // just try once
>> bool try_lock(unsigned spin_count); // spin this many times
>> bool try_lock(target_time_type target_time); // wait until the  
>> specified time
>> bool try_lock(time_period_type wait_time); // wait for the  
>> specified period
> 
> I like it.
> 

Can I respectfully suggest time_duration_type instead of time_period_type? 
That would bring the terminology in line with N1900/N2058.  I'm assuming what 
you actually want to do is have user code that looks like this:

  if (try_lock(seconds(3))) {...

  if (try_lock(milliseconds(100))) { ...

In boost date_time and N1900/N2058 time_period is an interval type with a 
start time and an end time.  Oh, and if N1900 isn't persuasive enough, 
'duration' happens to be the term ISO 8601 uses define a length of time.

Jeff