Eric Niebler wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
BTW, it just occurred to me that
timed_lock(m, 0)
could potentially generate different code from
timed_lock(m, some_int)
If we can detect literal zero... which I think is possible.
What about:
scoped_lock l(m); // block scoped_lock l(m, 0); // try scoped_lock l(m, 33); // timed
scoped_lock l(m, deferred); // deferred scoped_lock l(deferred(m)); // alternate
??
Interesting. That's workable.
On second thought, I think it's too subtle. You can detect literal zero, but you can't detect (at compile-time) an int with a value of zero. I'm not comfortable with this: scoped_lock l(m, 0); meaning something different than: int t = 0; scoped_lock l(m, t); Perhaps it's really OK because the effect is the same, but the fact that they would execute different code paths sets off bells in my head. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com