On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 08:06:22PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote: > On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 07:54:09PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > Surely that logic is pants, in that: > > correct. > > :unique seems to be a badly-thought out hack.
> >What happens if a child thread > > creates a new unique GV, spawns a grandchild and then quits? Does this mess > > with the assumptions of the :unique implementation?i > > I think "pants" sums it all up very well. I'm not sure. "pants" doesn't have enough expletives in it. It's going to get fixed, or it's heading to /dev/null (and it looks like I'm going to be the one fixing it, because the breakage it causes it getting in the way of me doing other stuff) Nicholas Clark
