Boost logo

Boost :

From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-22 15:54:16

David Abrahams wrote:
> on Mon Aug 20 2007, Howard Hinnant <> wrote:
>> Here is a link to a reference implementation and a FAQ for mutexes,
>> locks and condition variables I am currently anticipating proposing
>> for C++ standardization (or subsequent TR).
> I find the fact that unique_lock can reference a mutex without owning
> the mutex's lock rather confusing in light of the semantics of
> unique_ptr. It seems like unique_lock is looking more like the
> old-old auto_ptr.
> And what does it mean to construct a unique_lock from a shared_lock?
> How many owners are there if I copy a shared lock and construct a
> unique_lock from the copy? Fundamentally I want to know what is
> really "unique" about unique_lock.

I really prefer the older "exclusive_lock" name. This way lock names
indicate the type of locking mechanism that they will call on the passed
mutex (lock()=exclusive, lock_shared()=shared, lock_upgrade()=upgrade)
and we don't suggest that the lock "owns" the mutex as the "unique" name
might suggest. Several unique_lock's can refer to the same underlying
mutex, something that would never happen with unique_ptr.

Just my 2 cents,


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at