Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
2 points by rocketnia 4529 days ago | link | parent

In pg-Arc, '= on a variable is 'assign without 'atomic. Where 'atomic comes in is when there's a setforms thing to worry about.

And in that case, this...

  (= (car car.foo) (bar))
...turns into something like this:

  (atomic:with (gs1 car.foo gs2 (bar))
    ( (fn (val) (scar gs1 val))
      gs2))
This ensures that car.foo, (bar), and (scar gs1 val) all happen without interference in between. I suspect Racket at most protects those on an individual basis.

That said, I don't care about 'atomic myself. :-p



1 point by Pauan 4529 days ago | link

"In pg-Arc, '= on a variable is 'assign without 'atomic. Where 'atomic comes in is when there's a setforms thing to worry about."

I am aware. It still seems to me that if you're dealing with threads, you should wrap assignment in atomic yourself if you're worried about such things. Code that doesn't deal with threads shouldn't have to use atomic.

Perhaps there should be an `a=` macro that's just like `=` but it calls `atomic`. Hm... I wonder... would it be possible to detect whether code is running in the default thread and if not, automatically wrap it in atomic...? May be more trouble than it's worth, though.

-----

2 points by rocketnia 4529 days ago | link

"May be more trouble than it's worth, though."

That's what I think. Anyone who cares can say (atomic:= ...) or (atomic:zap ...), so I only see a couple of reasons why we'd want to have the 'atomic implicit:

- We want to use it all the time anyway. (I doubt it, but it's hard to tell. I haven't used threads, and therefore I've never bothered to find a way to squeeze utility out of it.)

- There are people who do care, and they'd be better off if the people who didn't care still used 'atomic by accident. (Again, it's hard for me to tell if this is true.)

-----