Stuart Halloway writes:
> It is mort important to focus on the semantics (commutative or last-
> one-wins) than the implementation details.
That's a tough pill to swallow. I understand the benefits of specifying
behavior to allow flexibility in an implementation, but here I think the
behavior is
If so, there's more to be explained about `commute'. I'm imagining the
commit-time rules saying that if competing changes to the refs touched
by `commute' can be ignored, because the changes can be applied in
either order. But if the operation was something like `inc', two
competing threads would
Meikel Brandmeyer writes:
> So using alter is the absolutely correct and nothing bad will
> happen. However you might construct superfluous default nodes in case
> the action is retried. They are not assoc'd to the map, though.
Understood. Thanks for the explanation.
> The anonymous function i
Hi,
disclaimer: I'm completely incompetent in terms of the STM. The
following is my understanding what happens. It might be completely
wrong. Ignore at will.
On Mar 2, 2:40 am, "Steven E. Harris" wrote:
> (dosync
> (or (*id-node-map* id)
> (alter *id-node-map*
> #(a
