2025-09-08 10:51, Jonathan Wakely:
> > If anyone has an idea, please share!
>
> unique_lock_n seems fairly easy to guess what it does from the name.
>
> Although I suppose all the existing xxx_n names in the library have an
> 'n' parameter that tells you the length, whereas here it's implied by
> the number of template arguments.
Yes, but it may be better to have `unique_lock` first in the name like
in unique_lock_n. Perhaps spelling it out to not make people think _n
means a numeric argment would be good:

unique_lock_many
unique_lock_multi

... or some version of that? / Ted