On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Saulius Zrelskis wrote: Hi Saulius,
> > 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? > There is quite interesting reading in Free E-book: Threading in C# > http://www.albahari.com/threading/ > Maybe it gives some thoughts? I've just read it and I can only say that the terminology used in C# only increase the communication problem. In C# MONITOR is SIGNAL object but SIGNAL method is called PULSE. MUTEXes can also synchronize processes. It's probably side effect of their internal implementation based on SEMAPHOREs so for fast mutual exclusion (FUTEXes) they LOCK was introduced. Sometimes I think that MS make such things intentionally :-( So the question is open. Personally I vote to not reinvent a wheel and not introduce new terms. If possible we should not participate in this terminology noise. MUTEX FUNCTION | PROCEDURE will be also crypted for some people. MUTEX and modifications like FUTEX are quite new terms and some people do not know them, f.e. Marek knows SEMAPHORE but didn't know MUTEX when it's nothing more then TWO STATE SEMAPHORE sometimes called BINARY SEMAPHORE usually reduced to single process synchronization for better performance (with some exceptions like C# ;-)) If someone has some other propositions then I'm waiting. English is not my native language and it's highly possible that my own preferences will not be well accepted. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
