Batov, Vladimir wrote:
Getting back to Boost.Threads I'd still like to see a compelling example where I'd need to declare try_lock but twist its intuitive functionality into behaving like scoped_lock (that is blocking until locked).
In the need of extreme memory efficiency and speed: I already have, from prior use, a scoped_try_lock 'l' around my mutex, currently unlocked. I need to lock my mutex in a blocking fashion. I do not wish to pay the memory and time cost to create an instance of scoped_lock just to do this. I therefore call 'l.lock()' and not 'l.try_lock()'. I don't know that it's compelling, but it is an example. I understand your arguments for keeping the interface clean, but there are legitimate reasons for wanting a blocking lock operation on a TryLock. Constructor parameters are, admittedly, a different discussion, and most of them boil down to syntactic sugar for a non-locking constructor and a call to some locking operation, blocking or otherwise. But (IMO) it's a useful syntactic sugar that *can* if used properly make programs less cumbersome to construct without sacrificing correctness or clarity. -- Christopher Currie <codemonkey@gmail.com>