On 04-06-2012 00:00, Andrew Wiley wrote:
*>From:* mta`chrono <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >*Sent:* Sunday, June 3, 2012 14:38:31 >*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >*Subject:* Re: synchronized (this[.classinfo]) in druntime and phobos > > >Am 30.05.2012 11:11, schrieb deadalnix: >> >> D already have much better tools that the one java provide >> (std.concurency, std.parallelism, TLS by default, transitive type >> qualifiers, . . .) that most these thing taken from java don't make any >> sense now. >> >> For instance, what is the point of being able to lock on any object when >> most of them are thread local ?? > > Right! Locking on non-TLS objects doesn't make sense. Perhaps only > shared objects should be synchronizeable and thus contain a monitor / > pointer to a monitor. auto thingy = new Thing(); auto sthingy = cast(shared)thingy; As long as we support casting to/from shared, you can’t eliminate the monitor pointer in any object. Sent from my _Windows 8 PC_ <http://windows.microsoft.com/consumer-preview>
(And let me just add: As long as shared is as impractical as it is, we shouldn't remove that ability.)
-- Alex Rønne Petersen [email protected] http://lycus.org
