[Ecls-list] Poll about removal of a feature

[Tobias C. Rittweiler]

Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
<juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com> writes:

> 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

And now to something (almost) completely different...  :-)

It would be cool if ECL's swank backend supported the
communication-style involving threads. I tried to do that maybe half a
year ago, but the started swank server would not accept the Emacs client
(perhaps because it got stuck somewhere before.)

  -T.