> because it makes you pay less for the same benefit.
Requiring a lambda capturing stuff and be passed around is not what I would call "pay less", when the alternative is just adding a block and instantiate a std::lock_guard
Requiring a lambda capturing stuff and be passed around is not what I would call "pay less", when the alternative is just adding a block and instantiate a std::lock_guard
The change suggested in this part of this discussion is by user “Blackthorn” in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35464828. It says:
> Neat idea. Though I think having to pass a lambda for anything you want to do with the fields is awful ergonomics.
> Maybe instead combine the two ideas. MutexProtected<T> but can be locked with MutexProtected<T>::lock() which returns a MutexLocked<T> object. That object then cleans up the lock when it goes out of scope, and also provides direct access to the enclosed type.
User “dietr1ch” replied in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35465610 he wanted to pay with a lambda to make it clear a lock is taken.
I tried to clarify that Blackthorn‘s suggestion would make that clear without requiring that lambda.