Hi Meikel, On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote:
> > I agree: it can be concurrently computed several times (but a given > thread > > would only compute it at most once). > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 01:26:10AM +0100, Christophe Grand wrote: > I must confess I was a little insisting on a point which has probably > only little impact in the real life. But a) I prefer to have correct > solution and b) it was a nice exercise. :) > Better safe than sorry :-) > You're right of course. I apologize. > ^^^^^^^^^ > Huh? What for? For not reading your code with enough scrutiny. > This was a really enlightening discussion! I concur: I really enjoyed this conversation. > > > As a minor note: couldn't a future replace your promise? Or couldn't you > get > > rid of the other thread and deliver the promise in the same thread but > > outside of the (locking ..) form? > > The problem with the future is, that it starts immediately. I don't see where the problem is with a future as long as you are in the locking form. > > Christophe, Eugen! I will summarise this discussion in blog post. It > really shows, that concurrent programming is not trivial. Not even for > „trivial“ things like a memoised function. > Great! Looking forward to read it! Christophe -- 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
