On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM, deadalnix
<deadalnix@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 01/06/2012 22:55, Sean Kelly a écrit :
On Jun 1, 2012, at 5:26 AM, deadalnix wrote:
The main drawback is the same as opApply : return (and break/continue but it is less relevant for opSynchronized). Solution to this problem have been proposed in the past using compiler and stack magic.
It open door for stuff like :
ReadWriteLock rw;
synchronized(rw.read) {
}
synchronized(rw.write) {
}
Opens the door? This works today exactly as outlined above. Or am I missing a part of your argument?
And many types of lock : spin lock, interprocesses locks, semaphores, . . . And all can be used with the synchronized syntax, and without exposing locking and unlocking primitives.
Unless you do some monitor magic, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
-----
class Something {
private:
ReadWriteLock _rw;
public:
this() {
_rw = new ReadWriteLock();
}
void doSomething() shared {
synchronized(_rw.read) {
// do things
}
}
}
-----
I've used this pattern in code. There might be some casting required because the core synchronization primitives haven't been updated to use shared yet.