27 Jun
2013
27 Jun
'13
6:48 p.m.
Le 27/06/13 09:49, Bjorn Reese a écrit :
On 06/26/2013 09:56 PM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
4. Could synchronized_value be renamed to just synchronized? Besides being shorter, this naming seems to be aligned with optional and reads more naturally. Consider:
optional< int > oi; synchronized< queue< int > > sqi;
And the synchronize() function could be renamed to hold() to make the names more discernible.
I could change it if there is an agreement of the Boost community. Vicente