[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: HASH-TABLE-PACKAGE-GENERATORS
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Re: Issue: HASH-TABLE-PACKAGE-GENERATORS
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Sun, 18 Sep 88 17:31 EDT
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <880916-015507-3866@Xerox>
- Line-fold: No
Date: 16 Sep 88 01:55 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...."
JonL and I are having a private discussion about this.
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?
Yes. It's clear that the community is not going to agree on one single
iteration language, which makes it likely that ongoing research on ways
of expressing iteration will continue. Having a standard low-level
mechanism so that the "blessed" iteration packages can be written in a
portable way, but refusing to publish its name, would be an unwarranted
deprecation of ongoing research.