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

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • 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 798211
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T22:56:00+00:00 2026-05-14T22:56:00+00:00

Suppose I have an autolocker class which looks something like this: template <T> class

  • 0

Suppose I have an autolocker class which looks something like this:

template <T>
class autolocker {
public:
    autolocker(T *l) : lock(l) {
        lock->lock();
    }

    ~autolocker() {
        lock->unlock();
    }
private:
    autolocker(const autolocker&);
    autolocker& operator=(const autolocker&);
private:
    T *lock;
};

Obviously the goal is to be able to use this autolocker with anything that has a lock/unlock method without resorting to virtual functions.

Currently, it’s simple enough to use like this:

autolocker<some_lock_t> lock(&my_lock); // my_lock is of type "some_lock_t"

but it is illegal to do:

autolocker lock(&my_lock); // this would be ideal

Is there anyway to get template type deduction to play nice with this (keep in my autolocker is non-copyable). Or is it just easiest to just specify the type?

  • 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
    2026-05-14T22:56:00+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 10:56 pm

    Yes you can use the scope-guard technique

    struct autolocker_base {
        autolocker_base() { } 
    protected:
        // ensure users can't copy-as it
        autolocker_base(autolocker_base const&) 
        { }
    
        autolocker_base &operator=(autolocker_base const&)
        { return *this; }
    };
    
    template <T>
    class autolocker : public autolocker_base {
    public:
        autolocker(T *l) : lock(l) {
            lock->lock();
        }
    
        autolocker(const autolocker& o)
          :autolocker_base(o), lock(o.lock)
        { o.lock = 0; }
    
        ~autolocker() {
            if(lock)
              lock->unlock();
        }
    
    private:
        autolocker& operator=(const autolocker&);
    
    private:
        mutable T *lock;
    };
    

    Then write a function creating the autolocker

    template<typename T>
    autolocker<T> makelocker(T *l) {
      return autolocker<T>(l);
    }
    
    typedef autolocker_base const& autolocker_t;
    

    You can then write it like this:

    autolocker_t lock = makelocker(&my_lock);
    

    Once the const reference goes out of scope, the destructor is called. It doesn’t need to be virtual. At least GCC optimizes this quite well.

    Sadly, this means you have to make your locker-object copyable since you need to return it from the maker function. But the old object won’t try to unlock twice, because its pointer is set to 0 when it’s copied, so it’s safe.

    • 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.