On Jul 15, 4:36 am, Shantanu Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 7. No "synchronized" keyword. Language should have better concurrency
> > > primitives. Queues / message passing (actor/agent model?) may be
> > > favored.
>
> > Certainly not something as verbose. I am thinking of supporting
> > explicit locks (mapped to java.util.concurrent.locks).
>
> Why map to something that can be already used as part of Java-interop?
I am thinking of something like this:
sync(x) {
}
where x can be any type, but if it is one of the lock types in
java.util.concurrent.locks then it will invoke following:
x.lock();
try {
}
finally {
x.unlock();
}
Regards
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM
Languages" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en.
