Peter Dimov wrote:
We _are_ considering alternate designs now. As part of this effort I asked:
This is certainly possible, but I don't see what the additional complexity buys us.
My apologies. You had directed that statement at one of Mike's designs, so I didn't think it was directed at mine as well. Let's see ... 1) a reduction in interface complexity. - one lock class, instead of a scoped_lock, try_lock, timed_lock, etc. - no bools or enums in constructors; instead, there are clearly named factory functions for customizing lock construction. 2) You can initialize a lock in the condition of an "if" statement. 3) You can return a lock from a function. (Benefit is debatable.) That's it, I think. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com