On Thu, 31 May 2012 10:48:51 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 5/31/12 2:36 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 19:29:39 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
You can have deadlocks but with synchronized you can't leak locks or
doubly-unlock them. With free mutexes you have all of the above.
I'm not suggesting using free mutexes. I'm suggesting keeping the mutex
private inside the object.
Ergo, you are suggesting using free mutexes. Your second sentence
destroys the first.
Depends on your definition of "free". You appear to have meant as an
instance/pointer/object even one in a class, I initially read it as
meaning as a separate object from the class you're locking. In any case,
you're right the compiler doesn't get synchronized()
statements/classes/methods wrong and a programmer can. The trade-off is
the cause of this thread of discussion.
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
