This might be of related interest: http://kotka.de/blog/2010/03/The_Rule_of_Three.html
On Jul 17, 3:19 pm, Peter Schuller <peter.schul...@infidyne.com> wrote: > Another thing occurred to me: While not necessarily important in the > cache of an LRU cache, one might want a data structure, even if it > tends to be used in a side-effectful manner, to participate in STM > co-ordinated transactions. If one hides an underlying ref, this means > that either callers do not have full control (to do, for example, > (ensure ..) on the ref), or the interface needs to provide specific > features to support this (e.g., lru-ensure). > > Again, for an LRU cache I think this may be a far-fetched desire to > have and so it is probably not an issue. Maybe there are other data > structures though, with a similar inappropriateness for a functional > interface, where full participation as a persistent data structure > with respect to STM would be desirable. > > -- > / Peter Schuller -- 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
