On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Denis,
On Jan 17, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Denis Kudriashov dionisiydk@gmail.com wrote:
Hi.
2016-01-17 17:47 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman btc@openinworld.com:
I suspect a problem since it does not check it is the owningProcess before setting owningProcess to nil. AFAIK, only the owning process should be able to release the mutex.
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.
I find LockOwnership a bit cumbersome. I guess you don't want just Lock but to include the sense of ownership. Would you consider one of these... * Locker "A person or thing that does an action indicated by the root verb" [1] * Lockee "Less commonly added to verbs to form words meaning a person or thing that is the subject of that verb (ie, who or that does an action), especially where a passive sense of the verb is implied." [2] * OwnLock * OwnedLock
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-er#Suffix [2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ee#Suffix
cheers -ben
It only contains primitives and no high level methods like #critical:.
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.