[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: HASH-TABLE-PACKAGE-GENERATORS
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Issue: HASH-TABLE-PACKAGE-GENERATORS
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 16 Sep 88 01:55 PDT
- In-reply-to: Jon L White <email@example.com>'s message of Wed, 25 May 88 13:12:47 PDT
There was an interesting interchange on this proposal back in May, but no good
resolution. Would someone care to review the messages and extract a revised
proposal? I think we can't ignore locking because there is a way to implement
iterators without locking. Moon says "You need to be able to wrap something
around the whole iteration,
not merely have a function that performs the next step in the iteration...."
Or is this issue moot? E.g., if implementations are required to provide LOOP and
OSS (even as a loadable libraries), is there any purpose served in also making
the lowlevel mechanism visible?