Does it have to be in 'std'? Cannot that be under 'scoped_lock'? Do not have the docs handy. Won't lookup mechanism pick it up?
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Howard Hinnant Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2004 10:31 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] Re: Lock unification [move]
On Jul 21, 2004, at 7:16 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
Howard Hinnant <hinnant@twcny.rr.com> writes:
<nod> How's:
scoped_lock lk1(m, defer_lock); // not locked ^^^^ ^^^^
Redundant. "deferred" is better.
I seriously thought about deferred. The word, whatever it is, if standardized, would be at namespace scope in namespace std. I was worried about it conflicting, or with its use not being easily associated with locks if it was just "deferred". Otoh, it is only a tag. Maybe it is a feature, not a bug for "deferred" to be able to influence (conflict with) things other than locks! Thanks for the second thought.
-Howard
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost