Jan. 5, 2016
3:59 p.m.
2016-01-05 16:06 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com>:
btw I have this growing suspicion that we should eliminate Semaphore>>critical: and Semaphore>>forMutualExclusion. Semaphores on their own should *not* provide a facility for to protect critical regions since they suffer from accidental release [1] due to *lack*of*ownership*.
I have same feeling when analyse problem of critical: implementation. But I not think that Semaphore>>forMutualExclusion is bad. It is common case that semaphore "free" by default. And this name is explicitly said about this.