no it is not, charles. i rarely disagree with you but the semantics are preserved, except for changing the behaviour of existing races.
brucee On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Charles Forsyth <fors...@terzarima.net> wrote: > you're essentially replacing > f := open(name, ...) > ... > close(f) > > which runs as a sequential process, and subject to the usual rules for > sequential > composition, by > > f := open(name, ...) > ... > spawn clunk(f) > > which introduces a race with an invisible anonymous process with no means of > synchronisation. > > what could possibly go wrong with that? > > (actually, it's more complex than spawning a new process, but the added > complexity of a set of service processes changes the details but not the > existence of the race, and doesn't affect the anonymity.) > > the change isn't sufficent to solve the efficiency (latency) problems > addressed by Op, > neither is it sufficient for big performance improvements if you're dealing > with something you can cache, > nor is it a necessary solution (at least in the form above) for the deadlock > problems. > >
