[Ecls-list] Poll about removal of a feature

[Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll]

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler <tcr at freebits.de>wrote:

> Why are reads locked, but writes not? When does that make sense?
>

You are right, the lock was in %puthash but neither in %remhash nor in
%gethash


> If it's impractical, sure get rid of it. I just wanted to express the
> opinion that implementation-provided synchronization can be very
> convenient for users.
>

That was the original motivation when I added it to ECL, but I have the
feeling that efficient bare structures plus also efficient synchronization
macros is probably better -- and more explicit in the code that the user
writes --. In any case this is just a poll, and currently 3-1 :-)

Juanjo

-- 
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/ecl-devel/attachments/20100204/0f7794eb/attachment.html>