From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-25 12:22:14
From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> 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 |=
Actually, that's what Howard's pseudo-code syntax meant.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;