[RFC] "lock" statement and "mutex" type.

[Graham St Jack]

Dejan Lekic wrote:
> BCS, on contrary - it is not considered - that is why I began this
> thread... :) So far all participants in this discussion agrees that D
> (language) needs this what we discuss. Sure everything depends on Mr.
> Bright.
> 
> -----------
> Dejan Lekic
>   http://dejan.lekic.org
> 


I agree that better threading support is needed in D. The synchronized 
keyword is a great start, but more is needed.

My opinion is that try_lock() on a mutex isn't a good idea - it is 
better to use conditions. You use mutexes to keep threads "apart" from 
each other (the synchronized keyword does this very well), making sure 
that no thread retains a lock for long.

You use conditions to enable a thread to "block" for potentially 
extended periods, without any thread retaining a lock on the mutex.

A couple of other related posts are:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/31340.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/34392.html