On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 01:02:53 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > But mutexes allow proper encapsulation by hiding the mutex resource. As > I've proven in the very OP of this thread, both druntime and phobos > suffer from the anti-pattern that is locking on a public resource when > you shouldn't. The language encourages doing it with this synchronized > business.
>From your comments, it sounds to me like the problem is entirely with synchronized blocks, not sychronized classes. Synchronized classes don't have the issue of having externals lock on them without the explicit use of synchronized blocks. They're the equivalent of locking a mutex in every public function and releasing it afterwards. The problem is that that mutex is effectively public such that when a synchronized block is used on it, it locks on the same mutex. If no synchronized blocks are used, as far as I can tell, it's a non-issue. As such, wouldn't simply making the use of a sychronized block on a synchronized object illegal fix the problem? - Jonathan M Davis
