On 5/31/12 12:27 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
On May 31, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
It does make sense, but I think we need a Lock struct type that
makes sure code cannot screw up the number of lock and unlock
calls. We shouldn't just expose bare lock() and unlock().
synchronized already works with classes that implement
Object.Monitor, and we have scope guards. Do we really need an RTTI
Lock struct as well?
At this point it's unclear to me what different branches of this
sprawling thread are proposing. I have extracted one thing that we
should definitely look into - formalizing the lowering of the
synchronized statement. Other than that I failed to derive much signal.
Andrei
