On Jul 21, 2004, at 8:30 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote:
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.
Oh, I just remembered another reason I chose defer_lock over deferred. I was trying to be symmetric with the try-counterpart: scoped_lock lk1(m, defer_lock); scoped_lock lk2(m, try_lock); vs: scoped_lock lk1(m, deferred); scoped_lock lk2(m, tried); <shrug> I disliked "tried" more than I liked "deferred". And I also felt that the benefit of symmetry was important to make the interface easier to learn. -Howard