On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:29:27 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/31/12 7:01 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
Sorry, I have no spare time to spare. You're getting free ideas/thoughts
from me, feel free to ignore them.
Thanks. Let me know if I understand correctly that your idea boils down
to "I don't like synchronized, let's deprecate it and get back to
core.sync.mutex and recommend the private thingamaroo." In that case, I
disagree. I believe synchronized has good merits that are being ignored.
No, this is definitely *not* what we are saying. The idea is that
synchronized(x) is still present, but what objects you can call this on,
and more importantly, *who* can do this is restricted.
Nobody is advocating abandoning synchronized in favor of manual locks. In
fact, I think we all want to *avoid* manual locks as much as possible.
It's all about controlling access. If it comes down to "you must use a
private, error-prone mutex member in order to prevent deadlocks," then I
think we have room for improvement.
-Steve
