Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add some convenience methods for locks. #79434
Add some convenience methods for locks. #79434
Changes from all commits
b14f597
fd43ac3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
MutexGuard
doesn't have any methods right now, because it implements Deref. If theT
already has an.unlock()
, this will make it harder to call that.unlock()
through this MutexGuard. Any existing code calling such an.unlock()
would change meaning with this change.Other types like
Box
solve this by not takingself
in their methods (e.g.Box::into_raw
), and must be called with the more verboseBox::into_raw(mybox)
syntax.But I think
MutexGuard::unlock(guard);
wouldn't be a big improvement overdrop(guard);
. :(What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm... I had not thought of that. I guess the primary difference in my mind was to make the code a bit self-documenting. It is not obvious to me when I see
drop(foo)
that a lock might be unlocked. I'm ok with the more verbose syntax, personally, but if we are going to do that perhaps we could do it like this instead:Then, one would use it like
which seems about as self-documenting as it gets...