<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Hi Denis,</div><div><br>On Jan 17, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Denis Kudriashov <<a href="mailto:dionisiydk@gmail.com">dionisiydk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Hi.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-17 17:47 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:btc@openinworld.com" target="_blank">btc@openinworld.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":2g3" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">I suspect a problem since it does not check it is the owningProcess<br>
before setting owningProcess to nil. AFAIK, only the owning process<br>
should be able to release the mutex. </div></blockquote></div><br>Yes. But it is not mutex. It is more abstract thing which allow implement mutex and other concurrency stuff (like ReadWriteLock). That's why I rename CriticalSection to LockOwnership in my proposals. It only contains primitives and no high level methods like #critical:.</div></div>
</div></blockquote><br><div>Sounds good. Now would be a good time to submit your preferred versions of the primitives which answer the values that make for more natural variable names. I'm about to release new VMs, including a 64-bit Spur JIT. So I could include the new primitives.</div></body></html>