> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-javamemorymodel@cs.umd.edu
> [mailto:owner-javamemorymodel@cs.umd.edu] On Behalf Of
> victor.luchangco@sun.com
>
> Concerning the semantics, I think most of the disagreement is at a
> high level--should we make stronger or weaker guarantees, and why--and
> depends on our motivation for providing those guarantees. For
> example, I didn't realize that incorrectly synchronized code is always
> considered a mistake, so I wanted guarantees to help people write
> correct but incorrectly synchronized code. Now that I've been
> disabused of that idea, I don't see much motivation to provide any
> more guarantees than are necessary to ensure safety. Obviously,
> others, including you, disagree. (I do agree, however, that it is
> worthwhile to add guarantees that limit the damage a synchronization
> error can have on other parts of a program. I'm just unconvinced that
> most of the guarantees being discussed will significantly simplify the
> task, particularly because I don't think most people will understand
> those guarantees.)
>
My sentiments exactly.
Sarita
-------------------------------
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:48 EDT