On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 14:07:44 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 07:00:42 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
Yeah, that was the original topic. Then I interpreted it like
all uses of "synchronized" would be deprecated.
That would be really bold thing to do, I don't think anyone
realistically proposes that. At most I'd suggest to explicitly
mark it in spec / documentation as legacy and unidiomatic
feature with no deprecation. Removing it does no benefit at
this point (even if I believe it shouldn't have been there from
the very start)
It wouldn't have no benefit; it would simplify the language. But
whether that simplification is worth the breakage it would cause
is another matter. And I doubt that Walter and Andrei would go
for the idea of deprecating synchronized at this point even if
most of us were pushing them for it, because it would break
existing code like DWT.
Certainly, if we were truly going to discuss deprecating
synchronized, we'd have to figure out a way to even get Walter
and Andrei to consider it, and I very much doubt that that is
going to happen. It wouldn't surprise me if the simple fact that
DWT exists would kill that proposal before Walter or Andrei even
considered considering it.
- Jonathan M Davis
