From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-15 18:50:52
Eric Niebler wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> BTW, it just occurred to me that
>>
>> timed_lock(m, 0)
>>
>> could potentially generate different code from
>>
>> timed_lock(m, some_int)
>>
>> If we can detect literal zero... which I think is possible.
>>
>> What about:
>>
>> scoped_lock l(m); // block
>> scoped_lock l(m, 0); // try
>> scoped_lock l(m, 33); // timed
>>
>> scoped_lock l(m, deferred); // deferred scoped_lock
>> l(deferred(m)); // alternate
>>
>> ??
>>
>
> Interesting. That's workable.
>
On second thought, I think it's too subtle. You can detect literal zero,
but you can't detect (at compile-time) an int with a value of zero. I'm
not comfortable with this:
scoped_lock l(m, 0);
meaning something different than:
int t = 0;
scoped_lock l(m, t);
Perhaps it's really OK because the effect is the same, but the fact that
they would execute different code paths sets off bells in my head.
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com