[boost] Re: Lock unification [move]

Howard Hinnant <hinnant@twcny.rr.com> writes:

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.

You only need part-of-speech symmetry. "deferred" is an adjective, so "non_blocking", "optional", "permeable",... would work find for the other one, from a grammatical point of view. I don't think "try" makes a very good adjective, and adding "_lock" to the end of it doesn't help. So I don't see the symmetry in "try_lock"/"deferred_lock" other than the suffix :vP -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com