On Sep 23, 9:23 am, Dave Jack <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe @ should expand to ensure rather > than deref inside a transaction, instead?
Should've thought about this more. How is the reader supposed to know that this code is called in a transaction? And it would leak if you deref'd inside a function called as part of the transaction (as the function could be called outside a transaction as well). You'd have to modify deref, or expand to something else if you leave deref the same. Amazing what a cup of coffee does, eh? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
