Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.erje.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: OT "sic" (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?
Date: 28 Jun 2011 15:56:30 GMT
Organization: None
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <96ubtdFdp3U3@mid.individual.net>
References: <d0bb9e06-16f0-4282-a37e-47e9ca9630ec@r2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> <iuce66$2nh$1@news.albasani.net>
X-Trace: individual.net 1Bm8OCyhy9Rn+ZgiWAfvHQWxrnR4kziJI19CMctrPinAN8o/wH
X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H3/v+tosABwo1gfOydX3UJt1+U8=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5732

In article <iuce66$2nh$1@news.albasani.net>, Lew  <noone@lewscanon.com> wrote:
> Alex J wrote:
> > I'm curious why Java designers once decided to allow every object to
> > be lockable (i.e. [sic] allow using lock on those).

"[sic]"?  The only thing that seems wrong here to me is the absence
of a comma after "i.e.".  Have I missed an error here ....

[ snip ]

> > The better decision, IMHO, would be to introduce lock/wait mechanics
> > for only, say, the Lockable descendants.
> 
> Oh, yeah, your opinion is humble.

Seemed that way to me.  Your reply, Lew, seems a little testy even
by your standards.  Just sayin'.  <shrug>

[ snip ]

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.