On 29 November 2010 16:33, Stuart Halloway <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I must respectfully disagree with James's first point here. The first pattern > (read-ponder-update) is not concurrency-friendly. It isn't about atom vs. > ref, the important distinction is whether all the work can be done in a > function that gets sent *to* the ref. The latter formulation also can be > extracted into a pure function, which is easier to test.
Good point. I wasn't thinking in terms of concurrency performance. - James -- 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
