Re: [boost] Re: Lock unification [move]

26 Jul 2004

      David Abrahams wrote:
...
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> writes:
...
...
...
I prefer to be able to name the lock variable 'lock' instead of
'lk'.
Suit yourself, but I think variable names should denote roles, not
types.
Hm. What is it that makes 'lock' not qualify as a role?
Well, OK, it's a role at a very low level of abstraction.  Something
more like "access_foo" for some mutex-protected resource "foo" might
be better.
Compare:

    lock lk( m ); // the original examples

with

    scoped_lock lock( m );

Or the role-based variation:

    lock access_foo( foo_mutex );

with

    scoped_lock foo_lock( foo_mutex );

Same but unnamed (because you won't be touching the lock afterwards):

    lock access( foo_mutex );

vs

    scoped_lock lock( foo_mutex );