-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 17 March 2008 09:29 am, Anthony Williams wrote:
I've used the concept "lockable" to describe something which can be locked. I felt this was a better term than "mutex", since some of the things that can be locked are not mutexes. For example unique_lock<some_mutex> also models "Lockable", so you can have a unique_lock<unique_lock<some_mutex> >. Hopefully the new boost.thread docs will give you a better idea.
I would not describe a pair of data+mutex as "lockable" unless you could indeed lock it and unlock it (with lock()/unlock() member functions). However, even if you could, the term "lockable" wouldn't (in my view) describe what the combined data structure was. Would "protected" better describe the intent? I know it's a keyword, but surely the idea is to protect the data from concurrent access.
The monitor and monitor_ptr classes from libpoet model the (old) Mutex concepts, with scoped_lock, scoped_try_lock, etc member types. Then they add things like supporting operator->() and operator*() on the scoped lock types, for access to the data. - -- Frank -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH3nqM5vihyNWuA4URApOmAJ41QPfU5xCZWK+w7AIxnzFDKllKcACgkMtW 75X5byFG/IsCwLFGjeyl4p8= =wwME -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----