On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:35:50 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:29:27 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/31/12 7:01 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
Sorry, I have no spare time to spare. You're getting free
ideas/thoughts
from me, feel free to ignore them.
Thanks. Let me know if I understand correctly that your idea boils down
to "I don't like synchronized, let's deprecate it and get back to
core.sync.mutex and recommend the private thingamaroo." In that case, I
disagree. I believe synchronized has good merits that are being ignored.
No, this is definitely *not* what we are saying. The idea is that
synchronized(x) is still present, but what objects you can call this on,
and more importantly, *who* can do this is restricted.
Exactly.
Nobody is advocating abandoning synchronized in favor of manual locks.
In fact, I think we all want to *avoid* manual locks as much as
possible. It's all about controlling access. If it comes down to "you
must use a private, error-prone mutex member in order to prevent
deadlocks," then I think we have room for improvement.
Indeed.
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
