From: John W Higgins <wishdev@...>
Date: 2011-04-22T01:11:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Hash Surprises with Fixnum, #hash, and #eql?

--000e0ce0082e712a4604a16ffefd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Good Morning,

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Clifford Heath <no@spam.please.net> wrote:

> On 04/21/11 21:28, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>> Please keep in mind that in a multithreaded environment there is
>> synchronization overhead.  A solution could use an AtomicBoolean
>>
>
> Oh get real. This is a single variable which may, during the course of
> a single execution, *once* change from false to true. In so doing, it
> enables a slightly more conservative approach to compatibility for one
> small side-effect of a shortcut, which probably doesn't even matter to
> the application, and which is almost certainly set by the one thread
> that cares about that side effect. It *so* doesn't need to be synchronised.
>
>
I'm sorry but the old saying "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"
really comes to mind here. This entire thread has been a rant against
implementation semantics being "inconsistent" in 0.001% of applications (if
that) and then you come back with - oh we can cheat here because your fix
would "almost certainly set by the one thread that care about that side
effect".

You don't get to cut a corner in providing a solution to a problem you
believe is cutting a corner. You are asking every one else to take a
performance hit (however small) to fix a problem that you won't even fix
properly? That doesn't seem appropriate at all.

John

--000e0ce0082e712a4604a16ffefd--