Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6172275
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 23, 20262026-05-23T23:21:50+00:00 2026-05-23T23:21:50+00:00

I’m looking for code shortening idea. I’m using boost::scoped_lock to lock a boost::mutex but

  • 0

I’m looking for code shortening idea. I’m using boost::scoped_lock to lock a boost::mutex but I want to shorten the amount of code I’m writing.

Currently I have a mutex defined in my class and the member field called _sync. When I want to lock, I have to write:

scoped_lock<mutex> lock(_sync);

The tricky part is that this is a scoped lock, so I assume that if I write a static function to return the scoped_lock, then it will unlock as soon as it gets out of the function scope of the static function:

static scoped_lock<mutex> lock(mutex& sync)
{
    return scoped_lock<mutex>(sync);
}

This approach would make it really easy to type:

public void Object::modify()
{
    lock(_sync); // <-- nice and short! ;)

    // do something to modify the object
    //..
    // the mutex is unlocked when we leave the scope of modify
}

Is my assumption correct? Will the scoped_lock unlock immediately when it’s returned by my static function?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-23T23:21:51+00:00Added an answer on May 23, 2026 at 11:21 pm
    #define LOCK(a) scoped_lock<mutex> scopedLockVar(a)
    
    public void Object::modify()
    {
        LOCK(_sync); // <-- nice and short! ;)
    
        // do something to modify the object
        //..
        // the mutex is unlocked when we leave the scope of modify
    }
    

    You should use a safe name for the define… The compiler just uses find and replace for defines…

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

No related questions found

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.