What about

using lockable_bisem = std::binary_semaphore {
    void lock() { acquire(); }
    Void unlock() { release(); }
};


Em sex., 24 de fev. de 2023 06:23, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via
Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> escreveu:

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023, Julien Villemure-Fréchette wrote:
> >
> > class stack : private vector
> > {
> > public:
> > using pop = vector::pop_back;
> >
> > // normal using declaration
> > using vector::size;
> > // this would be identical to
> > // using size = vector::size;
> > };
>
>
> If the object in question was originally defined as a 'stack' then
> this is fine. However if the original object was a 'vector', then it's
> undefined behaviour to cast it to 'stack' and pretend that it was
> originally defined as a 'stack'. Of course though, such a cast will
> work fine on every C++ compiler except in cases where the compiler can
> optimise for a lack of aliasing.
>
> My proposal deals with the original object having been a 'vector' --
> i.e. my proposal is useful in cases where you can't change the type of
> the original object. My proposal isn't much use at all if you can
> simply define the original object as a 'stack' instead of a 'vector'.
>
> By the way, you mentioned something that I forgot to put in my paper.
> The following snippet:
>
> interface lockable_bisem : std::binary_semaphore {
> void lock(void) noexcept(false) { acquire(); }
> void unlock(void) noexcept(false) { release(); }
> };
>
> can also be written in shorthand as:
>
> interface lockable_bisem : std::binary_semaphore {
> lock = acquire;
> unlock = release;
> };
>
> however you can only use this shorthand if the two methods have the
> same signature (i.e. the same return value and the same count of
> parameters and parameter types).
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>