> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> Be careful what you ask for from us language designers. If you're not
LW> careful, we'll take away your low-level primitives and give you something
LW> like Ada's rendezvous model.
Okay, give. You obviously think it is bad. (I don't know
Dan Sugalski writes:
: A language issue. Being able to require multiple locks upon entering a sub,
: along with timeouts and retries and such, would be very nice, and something
: for the language people. (Which probably means some of us over there, since
: I don't know that we have that much th
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> the user needs a mechanism to handle multi-object locking, or a clean
>> method to order his lock aquisition.
DS> A language issue. Being able to require multiple locks upon
DS> entering a sub, along with timeouts and retries and such, wo
At 06:15 AM 8/7/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > "JT" == John Tobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>JT> SVs are never downgraded, so no one's source and destination are
>JT> another's respective destination and source. Maybe the above sequence
>JT> isn't exactly right, but if we adhere to st
> "JT" == John Tobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JT> SVs are never downgraded, so no one's source and destination are
JT> another's respective destination and source. Maybe the above sequence
JT> isn't exactly right, but if we adhere to strict rules for lock
JT> sequencing, there won't be a
