On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 7:08 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > FWIW C++ has std::scoped_lock. So perhaps using a similar wording may help ? > > Yeah, I like "scoped_*" and "guarded_*" for naming. IMO, it reads better. FWIW in the Rust side we called the general facility `ScopeGuard`, then we also have lock `Guard`s and Rust stdlib has things like `MutexGuard`. Cheers, Miguel
