From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-07 10:59:33
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> This is certainly possible, but I don't see what the additional complexity
> buys us.
>
> TryLock l( m, false );
>
> if( l.try_lock() )
> {
> }
>
> looks acceptable to me.
>
> TryLock l( m, non_blocking );
>
> if( l.locked() )
> {
> }
>
> doesn't seem much of an improvement.
It does to me. I like names that say what they mean; false could
easily be misinterpreted.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com