Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 16:02:15 -0700
From: Friar Puck
> From: Taylor R Campbell
> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 20:50:54 +
>
> HASH-TABLE/CLEAN! probably shouldn't cons.
Then it shouldn't call maybe-shrink-table! and cons a shorter vector
:-(but not one bucket pair). If we
> From: Taylor R Campbell
> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 20:50:54 +
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:14:47 -0700
>From: Friar Puck
>
>The first use of without-interruption is in hash-table/clean!. I
>don't see the need. An abort during a cleaning should be harmless.
>Each splice p
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 20:50:54 +
From: Taylor R Campbell
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:14:47 -0700
From: Friar Puck
I considered that, but the abstraction seemed generally useful (and
widely neglected), Scheme mutexes are cheap to create, and more are
better,
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:14:47 -0700
From: Friar Puck
The first use of without-interruption is in hash-table/clean!. I
don't see the need. An abort during a cleaning should be harmless.
Each splice produces a valid bucket. Only new-size! really needs to
protect against an abo
> From: Taylor R Campbell
> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 23:54:09 +
>
>Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:34:41 -0700
>From: Friar Puck
>
>OK. The without-interrupts in hashtb.scm are actually spelled
>"with-table-locked". I replaced them with "without-interruption".
>The critical sect
