[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Concurrency
From: |
Ken Raeburn |
Subject: |
Re: Concurrency |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:36:30 -0400 |
On Mar 29, 2010, at 12:16, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Also, I think mutex-unlock should throw some kind of error if the mutex
>> is owned by a different thread. What do you think of that?
>
> That doesn't sound useful. There are perfectly valid ways to use mutexes
> where the locker and the unlocker are not the same thread.
True... but there are models where it would be a bug, plain and simple.
Maybe it should be an option to mutex-unlock?
Ken
- Re: Concurrency, (continued)
- Re: Concurrency, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Davis Herring, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Giuseppe Scrivano, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Giuseppe Scrivano, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency,
Ken Raeburn <=
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Ken Raeburn, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Giuseppe Scrivano, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Daniel Colascione, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/28