Am Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:52:55 +0000 schrieb Dicebot <pub...@dicebot.lv>:
> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:51:14 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote: > > On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:20:17 UTC, Minas Mina wrote: > >> > >> I agree that synchronized classes / functions that not that > >> useful. > >> > >> But synchronized statements, to me, make the intention of > >> locking explicit. > > > > Synchronized statements are fine and serve a good purpose, no > > need to delete them in my opinion. > > > >> > >> Maybe the internal monitor could be removed (with synchronized > >> classes / functions as well), and allow synchronized() {} to > >> be called on Lock objects, that essentially locks them at the > >> beginning and unlocks them at the end. > > > > Yes, I would love that. > > Isn't dedicated language feature a bit too much for a glorified > mutex scope guard? Guys, sorry to break into your wishful thinking, but synchronized(mutex) {} already works as you want it to since as long as I can think. Yes, it takes a parameter, yes it calls lock/unlock on the mutex. :) -- Marco