From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,c52c30d32b866eae
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,c52c30d32b866eae
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ea02452876a15e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Real OO
Date: 1996/05/02
Message-ID: <DqsEt9.8Hv@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 152618946
references: <Dqpo7r.HxD@assip.csasyd.oz> <Dqpuqu.IJs@assip.csasyd.oz>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object
Date: 1996-05-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <Dqpuqu.IJs@assip.csasyd.oz>,
Don Harrison <donh@syd.csa.com.au> wrote:
>Because all of the operands to a separate routine are locked at the same time.
>[My understanding of SCOOP is that Current would be locked first (as a result of
>an enclosing call), then any separate parameters].

I'll have to read up on SCOOP one of these days.  I'm not surprised that
it defines an order for locking.  It's not clear to me how one can
efficiently lock multiple objects "at the same time", i.e. as a single
atomic operation.  To avoid deadlocks, it seems like much complicated
hand-shaking would be necessary.

- Bob