On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: Hi Viktor,
> This looks good to me, but the name CRITICAL > to me doesn't really seem to imply the underlying > functionality, it also sounds a bit Windows-like, > so if possible, I'd suggest some other name. > Like MUTEX FUNC|PROC. It's much older term then whole MS history :-) There is also different name for such functions: MONITOR but who knows it in current days? How many people have heard sth about ADA or LINDA? I'm afraid not too much and it's really sad :-( People like to hear about *new* XYZ "technology" and do not even know that someone reinvent a wheel and this "new technology" was documented over 30 years ago. CRITICAL FUNCTION | PROCEDURE probably is quite easy to understand term in current days. If you do not like it then instead of creating sth new like MUTEX FUNCTION | PROCEDURE I'd prefer to use MONITOR FUNCTION | PROCEDURE but I do not know how it will look for native English speakers when FUNCTION or PROCEDURE will be added to MONITOR word. Opinions? > As for making hb_mutexCreate() a special function > exception allowed in STATIC initialization looks > a bit strange as a syntax, so maybe we could > rather consider using syntax like MUTEX STATIC s_mtx. > Which means the variable is a MUTEX per definition. > Or maybe just MUTEX s_mtx, but that may make things > more complicated to implement. I do not find it more stranger then current: static s1 := CTOD( "" ) static s2 := HB_STOD( "20081030" ) static s3 := UPPER( "abc" ) static s4 := EMPTY( 1 ) static s5 := IIF( AT( "c", "abcdef" ) != 0, 10, 20 ) [...] In Harbour just like in Clipper all functions optimized at compile time to simple expression can be used to initialize static variables. We can simply define that hb_mutexCreate() is yet another fully optimized functions (internally it will not be but this is not visible for Harbour user). Introducing new construction like MUTEX STATIC s_mtx looks nice but it will not be able to prevent users against overwriting s_mtx in the code. I can block assign and passing s_mtx by references but in such case it will mean that we introduce real new exception not yet another "fully optimized" function and it will force deeper compiler modifications. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
