//@ We already saw that we can use `Arc` to share memory between threads. However, `Arc` can only provide *read-only*
//@ access to memory: Since there is aliasing, Rust cannot, in general, permit mutation. To implement shared-memory
//@ We already saw that we can use `Arc` to share memory between threads. However, `Arc` can only provide *read-only*
//@ access to memory: Since there is aliasing, Rust cannot, in general, permit mutation. To implement shared-memory
*counter = *counter + by;
//@ At the end of the function, `counter` is dropped and the mutex is available again.
//@ This can only happen when full ownership of the guard is given up. In particular, it is impossible for us
*counter = *counter + by;
//@ At the end of the function, `counter` is dropped and the mutex is available again.
//@ This can only happen when full ownership of the guard is given up. In particular, it is impossible for us
- //@ to borrow some of its content, release the lock of the mutex, and subsequently access the protected data without holding
+ //@ to take a reference to some of its content, release the lock of the mutex, and subsequently access the protected data without holding
//@ the lock. Enforcing the locking discipline is expressible in the Rust type system, so we don't have to worry
//@ about data races *even though* we are mutating shared memory!
//@
//@ the lock. Enforcing the locking discipline is expressible in the Rust type system, so we don't have to worry
//@ about data races *even though* we are mutating shared memory!
//@
// **Exercise 15.1**: Add an operation `compare_and_inc(&self, test: usize, by: usize)` that increments the counter by
// `by` *only if* the current value is `test`.
//
// **Exercise 15.1**: Add an operation `compare_and_inc(&self, test: usize, by: usize)` that increments the counter by
// `by` *only if* the current value is `test`.
//
// the data inside the lock. Change the code above to do that. Try using `unwrap_or_else` for this job.
//@ ## `RwLock`
//@ Besides `Mutex`, there's also [`RwLock`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/sync/struct.RwLock.html), which
//@ provides two ways of locking: One that grants only read-only access, to any number of concurrent readers, and another one
// the data inside the lock. Change the code above to do that. Try using `unwrap_or_else` for this job.
//@ ## `RwLock`
//@ Besides `Mutex`, there's also [`RwLock`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/sync/struct.RwLock.html), which
//@ provides two ways of locking: One that grants only read-only access, to any number of concurrent readers, and another one
//@ another way of explaining `RwLock` is to say that it is like `RefCell`, but works even for concurrent access. Rather than
//@ panicking when the data is already borrowed, `RwLock` will of course block the current thread until the lock is available.
//@ In this view, `Mutex` is a stripped-down version of `RwLock` that does not distinguish readers and writers.
//@ another way of explaining `RwLock` is to say that it is like `RefCell`, but works even for concurrent access. Rather than
//@ panicking when the data is already borrowed, `RwLock` will of course block the current thread until the lock is available.
//@ In this view, `Mutex` is a stripped-down version of `RwLock` that does not distinguish readers and writers.
//@ `RefCell` across multiple threads?
//@
//@ In part 13, we talked about types that are marked `Send` and thus can be moved to another thread. However, we did *not*
//@ `RefCell` across multiple threads?
//@
//@ In part 13, we talked about types that are marked `Send` and thus can be moved to another thread. However, we did *not*
-//@ But what about `&T`, a shared borrow? Without interior mutability, it would always be all-right to send such values.
+//@ But what about `&T`, a shared reference? Without interior mutability, it would always be all-right to send such values.
//@ After all, no mutation can be performed, so there can be as many threads accessing the data as we like. In the
//@ presence of interior mutability though, the story gets more complicated. Rust introduces another marker trait for
//@ this purpose: `Sync`. A type `T` is `Sync` if and only if `&T` is `Send`. Just like `Send`, `Sync` has a default implementation
//@ and is thus automatically implemented for a data-structure *if* all its members implement it.
//@
//@ After all, no mutation can be performed, so there can be as many threads accessing the data as we like. In the
//@ presence of interior mutability though, the story gets more complicated. Rust introduces another marker trait for
//@ this purpose: `Sync`. A type `T` is `Sync` if and only if `&T` is `Send`. Just like `Send`, `Sync` has a default implementation
//@ and is thus automatically implemented for a data-structure *if* all its members implement it.
//@
//@ So if we had used `RefCell` above, which is *not* `Sync`, Rust would have caught that mistake. Notice however that
//@ `RefCell` *is* `Send`: If ownership of the entire cell is moved to another thread, it is still not possible for several
//@ threads to try to access the data at the same time.
//@
//@ So if we had used `RefCell` above, which is *not* `Sync`, Rust would have caught that mistake. Notice however that
//@ `RefCell` *is* `Send`: If ownership of the entire cell is moved to another thread, it is still not possible for several
//@ threads to try to access the data at the same time.
//@
-//@ Almost all the types we saw so far are `Sync`, with the exception of `Rc`. Remember that a shared borrow is good enough
-//@ for cloning, and we don't want other threads to clone our local `Rc`, so it must not be `Sync`. The rule of `Mutex`
-//@ is to enforce synchronization, so it should not be entirely surprising that `Mutex<T>` is `Send` *and* `Sync` provided that
-//@ `T` is `Send`.
+//@ Almost all the types we saw so far are `Sync`, with the exception of `Rc`. Remember that a shared reference is good enough
+//@ for cloning, and we don't want other threads to clone our local `Rc` (they would race for updating the reference count),
+//@ so it must not be `Sync`. The rule of `Mutex` is to enforce synchronization, so it should not be entirely surprising that
+//@ `Mutex<T>` is `Send` *and* `Sync` provided that `T` is `Send`.
//@
//@ You may be curious whether there is a type that's `Sync`, but not `Send`. There are indeed rather esoteric examples
//@ of such types, but that's not a topic I want to go into. In case you are curious, there's a
//@ [Rust RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0458-send-improvements.md), which contains a type `RcMut` that would be `Sync` and not `Send`.
//@ You may also be interested in [this blog post](https://huonw.github.io/blog/2015/02/some-notes-on-send-and-sync/) on the topic.
//@
//@ You may be curious whether there is a type that's `Sync`, but not `Send`. There are indeed rather esoteric examples
//@ of such types, but that's not a topic I want to go into. In case you are curious, there's a
//@ [Rust RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0458-send-improvements.md), which contains a type `RcMut` that would be `Sync` and not `Send`.
//@ You may also be interested in [this blog post](https://huonw.github.io/blog/2015/02/some-notes-on-send-and-sync/) on the topic.