20 Jul
2004
20 Jul
'04
1:30 p.m.
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
Doesn't that argue for the case of making the "key" that indicates that the lock should be "non-locking" more explicit than a bool? IOW, if one is rarely going to write "scoped_lock(m, false)," then the meaning of "false" is even more obscure and "non_locking" is even more appropriate.
"non_locking" is a terribly obscure name to associate with a lock. I really think "deferred" works well.
I can't disagree. I was just using the name already being proffered. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;