I'll be more careful before posted code that doesn't compile :) Anyway, here's my output using clojure 1.7-alpha3
<https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-MqiKnTcxneE/VFigwvQtzBI/AAAAAAAAA08/vGvY2waCJdc/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2014-11-04%2Bat%2B10.43.17.png> It could be that depending on OS/env the second future starts after the first one finishes (if you add more futures or Thread sleeps it might be easier to reproduce). But this example already shows that 2 threads are mutating the same transient, otherwise, as Atamert pointed out, the result should have been 45. Op dinsdag 4 november 2014 08:45:37 UTC+1 schreef Sean Corfield: > > On Nov 3, 2014, at 11:13 PM, Daniel Marjenburgh <dmarje...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > I was a bit too quick there and posted some errors int he code: > > That’s still not quite right. I think you mean: > > (let [v (transient {:a 0}) > f1 (future (reduce #(assoc! % :a (+ (:a %) %2)) v (range 10))) > f2 (future (reduce #(assoc! % :a (+ (:a %) %2)) v (range 10)))] > @f1 @f2 ; wait for futures > (persistent! @f1)) > > Which seems to consistently produce {:a 90} on both Clojure 1.7.0 Alpha 2 > and Clojure 1.7.0 Alpha 3. > > Sean Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN > An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ > > "Perfection is the enemy of the good." > -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) > > > > -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
