Hear hear.

I did get nerdsniped enough to implement a `class ReentryPreventer` synchronization primitive along Frederick's lines; but the example on Page 6 seems unimplementable without a ton of heap-allocation, which obviously won't fly even as a library solution.

The trick, as always, is to figure out what you want this class type to do, and then implement that. Right now Frederick has it "doing" about 10 different things, which makes it impossible to implement, of course. You have to figure out in words what it does, first; and then you can implement it from that.


On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:20 AM Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:15 AM Frederick Virchanza Gotham via
Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 4:00 PM Ville Voutilainen
> <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > P.S. Somewhat tongue in cheek: I don't think the proposal has enough
> > keywords for use cases virtually nobody needs.
> If it's more to your palate, replace all the keywords I proposed with
> std::[keyword].

Those sorts of things have been proposed and rejected. The point I
believe Ville was trying to make is that the feature you want to have
is not widely useful enough to need a keyword. Which suggests that
it's not widely useful enough to need to be in the language at all.
Std-Proposals mailing list