From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-08 11:44:57
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Michael Glassford wrote:
>
>>I agree that movable locks should wait. However, what about something
>>like this, which doesn't require movable locks (concept only--there
>>are probably errors):
>
>
> [...]
>
> Looks like Comeau in strict mode would still not accept it; noncopyable
> objects cannot be copy-initialized. But let's get back to my original
> question:
>
>
>>>>>>This is certainly possible, but I don't see what the additional
>>>>>>complexity buys us.
Well, in regards to simply choosing the right set of constructors, we
appear to disagree on what's beneficial, so I guess I can't answer that.
In regards to the alternative design Eric presented, or my responses to
it, it would buy this syntax:
if (try_lock l = ...)
{
}
Not major, perhaps, but nice.
Mike