cs_libguarded VS lock_ios

I know this article was trying to come up with an excuse to use a shared_ptr, but atomic smart pointers are a lot more error prone than wrapping mutexes in an appropriate interface that hides the complexity and forces you to use them correctly.

The approach I would recommend would be to use mutexes but wrap them in a convenience library designed to make them difficult to misuse: https://github.com/copperspice/cs_libguarded

I was inspired by the great copperspice library libguarded and wanted something similar for when I have to go back to micro's and FreeRTOS. The basic idea of the library is to prevent access to a shared data structure unless the mutex lock associated with it is also acquired. This is to prevent situations where someone forgets to get the lock before reading or writing to shared memory.

I'm personally partial to the basic guarded type from https://github.com/copperspice/cs_libguarded due to its simplicity.

The Rust strategy for mutexes sounds a lot like libguarded, which now that I've read this article is occurs to me that the former was likely have been the inspiration for the latter.

This is pretty much what libguarded does.

Also I don't think that operating this way is good to begin with. See how libGuard operates - it is way way cleaner and more flexible https://github.com/copperspice/cs_libguarded

have you heard of https://github.com/copperspice/cs_libguarded ? it sounds like a similar idea, but supports other stuff like rcu as well

https://github.com/copperspice/cs_libguarded#cslibguarded

My lock_ios iostream manipulator is similar in the mutex aspect. This use-case works well because it's typical to write one line of output per statement, and contention is usually a corner case in logging.