Re: scoped_try_lock

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-20 13:18:47

--- In Boost-Users_at_y..., <schalk_cronje_at_n...> wrote:
> I was wondering about this line in  
boost::detail::thread::scoped_try_lock:
> 
> 	if(m_locked) throw lock_error();
> 
> Since it is known that the lock attempt might fail and we do not 
want to
> block until the lock becomes available, is it not better to simply 
return
> false in the above case instead of throwing lock_error?

If you call this while m_locked is true you've violated the 
contract.  So a return of false isn't appropriate, but I expect that 
it may become an assertion instead.

Bill Kempf