Optional monitors suggestion

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 5/14/14, 6:33 AM, Yuriy wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 13:07:32 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> I'd like to know why you think D classes should not have the monitor
>> on default (this means why you don't plan for a @no_pointer).
> There are 4 reasons for that.
> 1. I'm thinking of monitors as members of Object class, so all other
> classes have monitors just because they are inheriting it. So with my
> proposal you would be able to add a monitor, but not remove it.

Agreed.

> 2. Mutex synchronization is pretty old-school approach, there's a lot of
> cons to using it, and thus it should not be carved into the language core.

Agreed.

> 3. I can't imagine a project that has more than 10% of it's classes
> being synchronized on, so this feature looks like more often unneeded
> than needed.

Agreed.

> 4. I consider D a killemall language, that may be potentially used on
> tiny AVRs and PICs, where polymorphism might be welcome, but an extra
> pointer for each class instance may become a blocker. I know, thats
> fantasy now, but i think it's crucial to keep this concept of D.

Agreed at least with the "killing the mall" part :o).


Andrei