On May 11, 3:13 am, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> I'm curious, wouldn't it be possible for every ref-set to be
> implicitly wrapped in a dosync? That way, you wouldn't have to
> explictly wrap ref-set in a dosync for the times where you just want
> to change one ref. You'd only need to explicitly c
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:13, Mark Engelberg wrote:
>
> I'm curious, wouldn't it be possible for every ref-set to be
> implicitly wrapped in a dosync? That way, you wouldn't have to
> explictly wrap ref-set in a dosync for the times where you just want
> to change one ref. You'd only need to e
I'm curious, wouldn't it be possible for every ref-set to be
implicitly wrapped in a dosync? That way, you wouldn't have to
explictly wrap ref-set in a dosync for the times where you just want
to change one ref. You'd only need to explicitly call dosync when you
need to wrap more than one ref-se