Subj : Re: Formal Mutex Semantics
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Joe Seigh
Date : Tue Aug 16 2005 06:52 pm

Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> Joe Seigh <jseigh_01@xemaps.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>What joke? That's the official Posix position on the issue.
> 
> 
> Should I adapt this as the semantics of synchronization primitives
> in my language, or there is a better choice?
> 

It's not complete and I have no plans to complete it either at this
point.  Way too much work for no reason.  I posted it as an example
of what thread semantics might look like if there were such a thing.

You might try something like Java's semantics. Or you could use
pirate semantics.  Or you could take Posix's approach and say
it's so obvious it doesn't need to be stated.


-- 
Joe Seigh

When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.

.