Brian Hurt wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Blair Zajac wrote:

> The only thing I can think of which cannot tolerate the cleanup slop is 
> releasing a mutex.  Deleting the mutex itself is a good application for 
> GC, unlocking the mutex is not.

It is not the GC which unlocks the mutex but the application 
code. See Mutex.unlock .

> And for that, I think representing 
> holding the lock as the lifetime of an object to be a bad idea.  Were Caml 
> interested more in doing multithreaded code, I'd recommend something like 
> Java's synchronize keyword.

What's the difference with respect to locking a Mutex?

Alex

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners