> When it useful to be able to deref inside a dosync without ensuring? When you deref and alter/set the same ref, the ref is protected from modification as well.
I couldn't think of an example of what I think you had in mind, something that requires a transaction but is tolerant of modification of the ref. > Ensure seems like a more safe default of what I'd expect from a > transaction. So why not make deref automatically ensure within a > dosync? It takes a bit of care to remember to use ensure instead of > deref in a dosync. I agree, and since I couldn't think of an example where the current behavior is desirable, it seems like unnecessary mental overhead. I don't think having the semantics of deref change depending on whether it's used inside a transaction is the way to go (especially since a key part of its contract is that it will never block writers, commuters, or other readers). Maybe @ should expand to ensure rather than deref inside a transaction, instead? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
