From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-20 10:54:24
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Yuval Ronen wrote:
>> Peter Dimov wrote:
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> I'd like to start working on a Boost implementation of my threading
>>> proposal N2178:
>> Just some naming comments, if I may:
>> It seems to me the word "lock" is used with different meanings. For
>> example, there's a "rwlock" and the scoped wrappers for it are
>> "read_lock" and "write_lock". Very confusing, IMO. I think the word
>> "lock" should either be used for the synchronization classes, or for
>> the scoped wrappers, but not both.
> I've consistently used the POSIX names. I agree that it's unfortunate that
> they used mutex and rwlock for the two primitives.
But maybe there's no real need to follow the POSIX name so rigidly for
the C++ classes?
>> The word "scoped" appears only for mutex's scoped_lock, although
>> read_lock and write_lock are also scoped. My opinion is that this word
>> should either be part of the names of all the scoped wrappers or none
>> of them, in a uniform manner.
> I tried the "none of them" approach, calling scoped_lock just lock, but it
> turned out to not work well in practice since it's better to reserve 'lock'
> for the variable name. I could've gone with Howard's exclusive_lock, but
> it's a bit too lengthy and hard to type for repeated use.
So maybe we should go for the "all of them" approach? scoped_mutex,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk