They kinda already do. Look into how core.mutex works. Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 30, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Peter Alexander <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30/04/11 8:29 PM, Walter Bright wrote: >> On 4/23/2011 4:43 PM, bearophile wrote: >>> First, they impose a full word of overhead on each and every object, >>> just in >>> case someone somewhere sometime wants to grab a lock on that object. >>> What, >>> you say that you know that nobody outside of your code will ever get a >>> pointer to this object, and that you do your locking elsewhere, and >>> you have >>> a zillion of these objects so you'd like them to take up as little >>> memory as >>> possible? Sorry. You're screwed. [I have not yet understood why D >>> shared this >>> Java design choice.] >> >> The extra pointer slot is a handy place for all kinds of things, not >> just a mutex. Currently, it is also used for the "signals and slots" >> implementation. Andrei and I have discussed using it for a ref counting >> system (though we decided against that for other reasons). > > That may be so, but it would be nice if the programmer had control over > whether or not they want to use that slot.
