[boost] Re: Lock unification [move]

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. -Howard