Batov, Vladimir wrote:
Mike,
With all due respect I am not sure that the additional complexity you are proposing is justified. It appears that the differences in lock and try_lock default constructors' behavior are consistent with other libraries and actually feel intuitive and natural to me. After all, it is reflected in what I do -- with lock I try until I succeed (that is [Batov, Vladimir] the lock blocks until succeeds), with try_lock I try once and may fail (that is it unconditionally falls through for me to check the result).
Part of the point, though, is that try_lock doesn't actually work that way: one of the try_lock constructors does a non-blocking try_lock(), and the other does a blocking lock(). Without looking, do you always remember which one does which? I don't. Mike