[Proposal] Make lock object optional

[rev3r]

Background

Everytime we create lock block, we need to provide "lock object". It allows declaring multiple lock blocks as related. In majority of cases we use it only for single lock block.

Proposal

I suggest making (_obj) optional. If not provided, compiler will generate one for us. That will make lock cleaner.

lock
{
    //code that needs to be synchronized
}

Alternative

Now developers needs to add "lock object" in each statement:

private readonly object _obj = new object();
...
lock (_obj)
{
    //code that needs to be synchronized
}

That requires more typing and pollutes source code. It also creates possibility of bugs, if not used correctly.

[HaloFour]

How would the compiler know where that lock object should be declared? Should it be instance or static? How can you share it between multiple methods? I assume you couldn't.

The clarity of the scope of the lock object is just as important as the lock itself and I don't think the compiler should hide it.

[rev3r]

As I said, that would be for 90% cases where you don't need to share "lock object".

How broad scope should be, and if it should be instance or static, could be adjusted to most common scenario.

This is not trying to replace standard lock, it's just shortcut for the 90% cases.

[HaloFour]

How broad scope should be, and if it should be instance or static, could be adjusted to most common scenario.

What is that "common scenario"? What if that changes?

At worst if you're required to declare the lock object you have to type a little extra code once.

[rev3r]

@HaloFour most common is private readonly object _obj = new object(); by far. And if it would change in the future, nobody forces you to ommit (_obj). It only makes life a little easier.