From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Date: 2000-10-27T22:17:10+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:5910] Re: [RFC] Towards a new synchronisation primitive

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, hipster wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000  18:12:57 +0900, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Agreed.

Thanks.
> 
> > 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?
	[...]
> I'm not sure I completely understand you. If a class is synch, methods
> don't need to be explicitly sync'd. Assuming `def synch method' is

Oh, I missed that detail.

> equivalent to explitly syncing the method body (discussion pending),
> synch is just an alternate notation. I introduced this because matz
> spoke about a Java-like synchronized notation/mechanism.

I don't know enough about Java to comment on that.
> 
> > 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....
> 
> I like this house+key metaphor, let's use it. The Java lang-spec 2.0
	[...]
Thank you.
> 
> 	Michel

	Hugh