Re: [thread] is this reverse_lock class a source of errors?

> "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet@...> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Consider the following situations:
>>
>>  {
>>      unique_lock<mutex> lock(smtx);
>>
>>      // ... some writing operations
>>
>>      { // non locked block
>>          reverse_lock< unique_lock<mutex> > rlock(lock);
>>          // ... some code not needing the mutex to be locked
>>      } // locked again
>>
>>      // ...
>> }
>
>> Do you think this usage is souhaitable or is this source of errors?
>
> I've had to do it myself a few times. I think it's worthwhile adding it to
> the
> library in order to ensure it is done as safely as possible.
>
> Anthony