On Mon, 8 Sept 2025 at 19:06, Ted Lyngmo via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> 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

I find unique_multilock a perfectly good name.