Re: Thread-safe caches
- From: Pascal Costanza <pc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:11:22 +0100
Edi Weitz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:54:37 +0100, Pascal Costanza <pc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Indeed, if setf weren't atomic, you would have to protect even the
simplest code against concurrency.
I would say that makes sense for SETQ, but not for SETF as you
yourself can implement arbitrarily complex SETF functions.
Since there is no real difference between setq and setf... - but I know what you mean. ;)
But how to be sure?
Ask the vendors?
*sigh*
OK. :)
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Thread-safe caches
- From: Duane Rettig
- Re: Thread-safe caches
- References:
- Thread-safe caches
- From: Pascal Costanza
- Re: Thread-safe caches
- From: attila . lendvai
- Re: Thread-safe caches
- From: Pascal Costanza
- Re: Thread-safe caches
- From: Alex Mizrahi
- Re: Thread-safe caches
- From: Pascal Costanza
- Re: Thread-safe caches
- From: Edi Weitz
- Thread-safe caches
- Prev by Date: Re: Thread-safe caches
- Next by Date: Re: Thread-safe caches
- Previous by thread: Re: Thread-safe caches
- Next by thread: Re: Thread-safe caches
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|