On Thu, 07 Sep 2000, Steven W McDougall wrote:
> RFC 1 proposes this model, and there was some discussion of it on
> perl6-language-flow.
Which is strange, since it was released for this group. Hmmm. But yes,
we did seem to hash out at least some of this before, which, to
Steven's credit, was the reason behind RFC 178. (To document an
alternate solution to, and possible shortcomings of, RFC 1.)
To reiterate (or clarify) RFC 1 - I'll investigate the next rev this
weekend - the only atomicy (atomicity?) I was guaranteeing
automatically in the shared variables was really fetch and restore.
(In other words, truly internal. Whether that would extend to op
dispatch, or other truly internal variable attributes would be left for
those with more internals intuits than I. Existence is also another
thing to be guaranteed, for whatever GC method we're going to use, but
I think that's assumed.)
$b = $a + foo($a);
The $a passed to foo() is not guaranteed *by perl* to be the same $a
the return value is added to. But the $a that you start introspecting
to retrieve the value so that you can pass that value to foo() is
guaranteed to be the same $a at the completion of retrieving that
value.
That's all.
Any more automagical guarantees beyond that is beyond the scope of RFC
1, and my abilities, for that matter.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
