From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Date: 2000-10-27T18:12:57+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:5902] Re: [RFC] Towards a new synchronisation primitive

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, hipster wrote:

> The proposed syntax requires a new keyword `synchronized', and a new method
> `synchronize' on class Object. For brevity, the keyword `sync' and method
> Object.sync could be considered.

Please don't call it 'sync'.  There is a Unix command of this name
already, which may cause confusion.  I think 'synch" would be OK though.


Random (half-baked) thoughts:

I'm not sure about the need for

    def synch method
        ...
    end

if an instance can have @variables that are synchronisable. Would 
that not remove the need to say the method itself is synchronisable?
It only needs to synch if it touches something "critical".

If 
    class synch Thing
        def a
            b
            ...
        emd

        def b
            ...
        end
    end

then when a invokes b, it is the same instance that holds the lock, so
deadlock could be avoided.  The only time you cannot get into your house
is if somebody ELSE has the only key; if you have it that is OK.  Or is
that too simplistic?  This area is full of subtleties....

	Hugh