On Wed, 30 May 2012 20:46:17 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 5/30/12 12:25 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 30-05-2012 21:12, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/30/12 12:03 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:32:59 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 5/30/12 10:47 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Yes, you can just use a private mutex. But doesn't that just lead to
recommending not using a feature of the language?
I don't think so. Synchronized classes are the unit of scoped locking
in D. If you want to do all scoped locking internally, make the class
private.
Maybe you didn't read thoroughly the first part of my post (the
example
that shows a deadlock that is easily preventable if the mutex isn't
exposed).
The mutex is not exposed.
I'm trying really hard to not to be rather impolite here, but I don't
know how else to put it: You seem to be the only one who subscribes to
this definition of "exposed".
I don't care as long as it's the correct one. The mutex is not exposed.
Ok, how about you tell us what term you want to use for the current state
of affairs then, because arguing about this is pointless and I'm happy to
use whatever term you deem appropriate (because I couldn't care less what
the term is - as long as we all know what is meant, which I believe is the
case here).
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
