Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads: Do we need all those mutexes?

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-07 12:47:37

David Abrahams wrote:
> "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.

'false' is existing practice in this case, which is why I used it in the
example. But it's a distraction; to level the playing field compare:

    TryLock l( m, unlocked );

    if( l.try_lock() )
    {
    }

with:

    TryLock l( m, non_blocking );

    if( l.locked() )
    {
    }