On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 18:50:28 +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
> Sorry for the necro-equine flagellation, but I think STM would have to
> support general nesting to be useful. In fact I'd be highly surprised
> if the Haskell STM implementation doesn't already support it.
Uh, yeah, that's exactly my p
Yuval Kogman wrote:
everyone gets to choose, and another thing I have in mind is the
Transactional role...
DBI::Handle does Transactional;
To the STM rollbacker and type checker thingy this means that any IO
performed by DBI::Handle invoked code is OK - it can be reversed
using the Transa
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 15:16:16 +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
> Yuval Kogman wrote:
> >everyone gets to choose, and another thing I have in mind is the
> >Transactional role...
> > DBI::Handle does Transactional;
> >To the STM rollbacker and type checker thingy this means that any IO
> >performed b
On 7/18/05, Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this needed, when you can just;
>
>atomic {
> unsafeIO { $dbh.begin_work };
>
> unsafeIO { $dbh.do(...) };
>
> unsafeIO { $dbh.commit };
>} CATCH {
> $dbh.rollback;
>};
Shouldn't that `CATCH` block be wit
Yuval Kogman wrote:
everyone gets to choose, and another thing I have in mind is the
Transactional role...
DBI::Handle does Transactional;
To the STM rollbacker and type checker thingy this means that any IO
performed by DBI::Handle invoked code is OK - it can be reversed
using the Transa
Hey! Welcome back our show, gay camels[1] in denial! On todays show,
those who can't shut up won't, and will send you another email!
Today's issues cover STM, and just that.
Perl6 should have some kind of
atomic {
...
}
going on, AFAIK.
W
