From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-24 09:50:16
Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>> scoped_lock = move(scoped_lock);
>> scoped_lock |= move(upgradable_lock); // 1
>
> I like the pipe's suggestion of a wall and, hence, blocking. The
> x= operators are good, in general, as they still suggest
> assignment (<<= is better than << for that reason).
Problem is that the syntax is illegal. scoped_lock is a type. You
can do:
scoped_lock x(move(my_upgradable_lock),blocking);
x |= move(my_upgradable_lock);
but that's it. No constructing new scoped_locks with |=
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com