On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:12 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. > >
Wouldn´t a better way be?: f := open(name, ...) tclunk(f); spawn deallocfid(f); //and whatever needs to be done on Rclunk Hmm, it would be more like sending the Tclunk and not waiting for the response. That would mean that the fid cannot be unmarked for reuse until the response is received (asynchronously), so it can be moved to a "stale fid" table to be deallocated later. Most of the semantics are the same. I agree that the performance gain is probably not enough to bother anyway. You are still doing all the walks and so on. Unless clunk means something in slang :-P. G.
