Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 18:10:21 -0400
On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 5:56 PM Ted Lyngmo <ted_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Thank you Arthur and Howard!
>
> Sure, I can (re)introduce it. I was given some pretty compelling
> arguments for why it should be removed in the first code review I
> requested for the implementation:
> >
> https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/297876/freestanding-try-lock-for-try-lock-until/297885#297885
>
> The main objection was mainly that it's not predictable (and the
> algorithm is an implementation detail) - but I agree that for
> consistency and for possible uses of the index that I can't foresee
> myself, I'd better add it.
>
> I'll work on an update and be back!
>
One more nit I missed: Remove every instance of [[nodiscard]] from your
proposed wording. You are correct that *vendors should* mark the function
[[nodiscard]] (just like they do for std::lock and std::try_lock), but we
don't write that noise in the paper standard itself; we leave it up to
vendors to do it quietly by themselves, just like we leave it up to
compiler vendors to decide whether to emit a diagnostic when you discard an
expression's value *regardless* of whether it's explicitly marked
[[nodiscard]] or not.
–Arthur
> Thank you Arthur and Howard!
>
> Sure, I can (re)introduce it. I was given some pretty compelling
> arguments for why it should be removed in the first code review I
> requested for the implementation:
> >
> https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/297876/freestanding-try-lock-for-try-lock-until/297885#297885
>
> The main objection was mainly that it's not predictable (and the
> algorithm is an implementation detail) - but I agree that for
> consistency and for possible uses of the index that I can't foresee
> myself, I'd better add it.
>
> I'll work on an update and be back!
>
One more nit I missed: Remove every instance of [[nodiscard]] from your
proposed wording. You are correct that *vendors should* mark the function
[[nodiscard]] (just like they do for std::lock and std::try_lock), but we
don't write that noise in the paper standard itself; we leave it up to
vendors to do it quietly by themselves, just like we leave it up to
compiler vendors to decide whether to emit a diagnostic when you discard an
expression's value *regardless* of whether it's explicitly marked
[[nodiscard]] or not.
–Arthur
Received on 2025-08-27 22:10:37