dLux wrote:
>
> /--- On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 12:30:25PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> | > Still not good. "trans" is too overloaded word. "transaction"?
> | > "transactional"? (a bit too long...) "atomic"?
> |
> | "acid"?
> \---
>
> "transactional" and "transaction" are quite long, I don't like that.
>
> "acid" could be misleading in this case: this is a different
> transaction mechanism that most db server has.
No, it's misleading because it's only the C of ACID. (It's neither
atomic nor durable, and only isolated if you ask for it.)
> "atomic" will not be true if you don't use "user transaction" (in
> multithreaded environment, and with objects).
>
> Other suggestions? I want a keyword, which expresses more the nature
> of the perl transaction: the value is permanent if the code runs
> correctly, and will be lost if the code has died. What about
> "onsuccess", "consistent", "? I personally prefer "trans", because
> it is short and clean-cut.
>
> Other idea?
"cond" for conditional?
Or how about "hopefully"? :-)
Or maybe just "please", since it implies a request that could be denied?
group "1" $x = $y + 1;
defaulting to
group $Package::TRANSACTION_ID $x = $y + 1?
(I'm thinking there of having an arbitrary number of overlapping groups
that can be individually committed or rolled back, with scope exits only
having an effect if they aren't yet committed or rolled back.)
Or what about a variable attribute:
my $x : transactional
and making the effect completely lexical? Why would other scopes need to
see such variables?
