I wouldn’t bother with the define, mine looks something like this:

I agree. However the define makes the code more readable and clearly defines the scope of the synchronization so is less error prone.

{
Lock lock(mutex);
… do stuff while locked
}

The definition of synchronized is definitely missing the class name, sorry for the mistake, I’ll correct it. It should be *static_cast<cls*>(this);. It is just a mistake arising from HTML.

Anyway, I’m a bit unsure whether an if statement will be satisfactory. Are you sure it will be exception safe with it? Btw, maybe you’re right. Unfortunately this for loop idea came from the original author, I haven’t thought I can further improve that one, but if statements should act in exception cases in the same way as for cycles, so your point is probably right. I’ll check it out at home.

Thanks for the helpful response and sorry that I’ve posted incorrect information, just I was in a hurry yesterday. I will be more careful in the future

good article, but there is a typo in definition of synchronized(cls). Maybe it should read: …= *static_cast(this); …

It is also possible to remove the “bool _release;” from Lock.
Instead define an “operator bool ()” as “{ return true ; }”
and redefine synchronized(obj) as

#define synchronized(obj) if (Lock obj##_lock = *obj)

Hope this helps.

Looking forward to your next post

Jörg