Here is just an idea.

Consider the following code :

lock.acquire();
doSomthing();
lock.release();


acquire & release are tightly related : when you call one, you *must* call the other. There is many other exemple of that : acquiring a connection from a connection pool, thread from a thread pool, notify to the system that you start painting an area then notify that it's over, transactions ...

What about something like that :

interface Acquirable {
    void acquire();
    void release();
}

and this controle structure :

acquire( Acquirable ) {


    // here Aquirable is released.
}



acquire( lock ) {
    doSomething();
}


Well ... i dont know if it's realy usefull.

-- Nicolas Repiquet

somewhere back in the archive there is something from me about this
using a templated auto class
I wanted

instance foo(T).obj OBJ;
with( auto new OBJ(p) ) {
}

rather than
{
    auto OBJ obj(p);
}

allowing any type of acquire/lock via a simple template.

"DeadCow" <deadcow-remove-this@free.fr> wrote in message news:bgesvf$1fq8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Here is just an idea.
>
> Consider the following code :
>
> lock.acquire();
> doSomthing();
> lock.release();
>
>
> acquire & release are tightly related : when you call one, you *must* call the other. There is many other exemple of that : acquiring a connection
from
> a connection pool, thread from a thread pool, notify to the system that
you
> start painting an area then notify that it's over, transactions ...
>
> What about something like that :
>
> interface Acquirable {
>     void acquire();
>     void release();
> }
>
> and this controle structure :
>
> acquire( Acquirable ) {
>
>
>     // here Aquirable is released.
> }
>
>
>
> acquire( lock ) {
>     doSomething();
> }
>
>
> Well ... i dont know if it's realy usefull.
>
> -- Nicolas Repiquet
>
>
>