On Jul 15, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Michael Glassford wrote:
My original intent was to add constructors that would make it explicit whether you were asking for a blocking lock, a try lock, or a timed lock, and to remove the ambiguity in the try_lock constructors (rather arbitrarily, one is blocking, the other non-blocking, even though they look just like the lock class constructors which both block). There were some who argued against my idea and none who supported it, so I dropped the it.
Fwiw, I'm still toying with: lock(m, not_locked); lock(m, not_blocked); (or whatever the spelling was). I haven't been using that syntax in my examples simply because I don't have it coded that way and I try to compile my example code before I post it (at least usually). Anyway, I'm personally not ready to drop the enum set you proposed, or at least a subset of it. There's a lot of stuff that's been proposed. Perhaps we need competing implementations that can be played with (as opposed to just competing designs). -Howard