Deprecate try_lock_order, introduce try_lock_explicit[_unchecked]
#3
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is my proposal to address #1.
try_lock_ordermethod that is incorrectly marked as a safe function. This allows existing code usingtry_lock_orderto keep compiling, yet encouraging developers to switch to the new, safer alternatives described below. This can be removed after an API-breaking version bump.try_lock_explicitmethod, which panics if the provided orderings are not strong enough.try_lock_explicit_uncheckedmethod, which doesn't check the given orderings and thus is marked asunsafe.Naming these methods as
*_explicitwas inspired by C11 atomics.