On 5/19/13 7:06 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 19 May 2013 at 22:32:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
How was there a bug if everything was properly synchronized? You
either describe the matter with sufficient detail, or acknowledge the
destruction of your anecdote. This is going nowhere.
I explained over and over. A field is initialized to null, while the
object lock is owned, and later to its value, while it is locked. In the
meantime, another thread access the object, owning the lock, assuming
the field is always initialized.
How does another thread thread accesses the object "owning the lock"
when the assignment occurs under lock?
How would non-null fix this? Would the object have type Maybe?
Andrei
