Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
Notice, that except for the access to the HashMap containing the
properties
you do not need to do much more in the sense of thread safety.
The names are unique, hence there is no two threads with the same
property
(unless the name gets passed from a common parent) but in that case, the
parent
is the one that should remove the name.
Yes you are correct. :-D
In that case, you should modify the code to remove the property at the
end of the macrodef. This would help a lot of people to accept this proposal.
Peter
BTW, let me just stress again, that my approach can be also used for other things like for example: references. Is there a way to define local references in a macro today?
It is up to you to decide what you want to use the new name for. And in
that sense it would be also up to you to specify for it to be cleaned afterwards. This
is the main
reason why I did not impose a particular scope semantics.
Jose Alberto
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
