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

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-02 11:25:32

Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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? 

Of course; the names were just placeholders.

> 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))) { ...

Yes.

> 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.

Thanks for the references. Duration is what I meant.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Software Developer
Just Software Solutions Ltd
http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk