Crystal clear, thanks.
On Friday, August 10, 2012 10:16:19 PM UTC+3, Andy Fingerhut wrote:
>
> Hussein:
>
> If you ignore the ref for the moment, making any "change" to a map, or a
> map nested inside a map however many levels deep you wish, does not mutate
> the original map. Instead it creat
Hussein:
If you ignore the ref for the moment, making any "change" to a map, or a map
nested inside a map however many levels deep you wish, does not mutate the
original map. Instead it creates a brand new map with the new set of keys and
values. It is as if the original was copied, and the c
If you want to stay with atomic transactions this is a Clojure feature ,
STM, if my souvenirs sont bons
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 18:21:12 UTC+2, Hussein B. a écrit :
>
> Hi,
> I have a ref type that wraps a map, this map is going to embed many nested
> other maps.
> According to immutability rul
Would answer, if you want to be atomic, means transactional memory, that is
a feature of Clore .
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 18:21:12 UTC+2, Hussein B. a écrit :
>
> Hi,
> I have a ref type that wraps a map, this map is going to embed many nested
> other maps.
> According to immutability rules, wha
Hi,
I have a ref type that wraps a map, this map is going to embed many nested
other maps.
According to immutability rules, what happens when:
A new nested map is updated (entry is removed or update) or even a new
nested map is added to the master map that is wrapped by ref type?
Thanks for help
