Laurent PETIT a écrit : > I guess you're right. But a little warning in the javadoc could help > newcomers not shoot themselves in the foot. > And the problem is, calling directly (second) without calling (first) > would work most of the time. I wanted to make it fail every time => > same behaviour whatever the input data are. >
Such a guarantee implies a side effect on the first seq is realized! >> Neither do I. Updates to the atom are serialized by the lazy-seq >> realization, so we don't even need an atom: a simple volatile field >> should do the trick. No? >> > > Yes, what would be the prettier way to do this ? I could think of some > hackish but working array of one element :-) ? > I don't think (with-local-vars will work, since the produced seqs > could not be transported among threads anymore). > I think that 1-elt arrays don't work well with threads, that's why I suggested a volatile field. But I'm not a concurrency expert (just received my copy of Java Concurrency In Practice :-D) Christophe -- Professional: http://cgrand.net/ (fr) On Clojure: http://clj-me.blogspot.com/ (en) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
