On Jun 18, 3:34 pm, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 18, 5:23 pm, "Stephen C. Gilardi" <squee...@mac.com> wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Adam Blinkinsop wrote: > > > Does ref-set not set the "in-transaction-value"? It looks like the > > > only difference is the signature, and that can't be right. > > > Both set the in-transaction value. ref-set sets a specific value. > > alter runs a function to transform the previous in-transaction value > > to a new one. > > > Clojure doesn't always offer only a minimal set of tools to work with > > its pieces. One could write ref-set in terms of alter, for example. > > The only practical difference would be a small additional cost in > > runtime. > > Most important is what they convey to the reader. ref-set says "I'm > trashing the current value of the ref", while alter says "I'm > transforming the current value of the ref". You should never use ref- > set to do the latter. alter, swap!, and send all have the same pattern > of transformation and are preferred.
Ah, documentation purposes I can understand. (I'm just attempting to get at what primitives are necessary for Clojure-like STM.) Thanks to everyone who responded. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
