From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2003-06-04T17:35:27+09:00
Subject: Re: thread-unsafe stuff: could you summarize?



"Tom Felker" <tcfelker@mtco.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1054670835.2342.74.camel@tom...
> On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 03:24, Robert Klemme wrote:
> >
> > First, accesses to @deferRunning should be done synchronized. But: Why
do
> > you introduce @deferRunning when you have already a Mutex? You can do
> > try_lock and locked? on a Mutex thread safe but without blocking the
> > current thread.
>
> Looking back, I can't remember why I even have that.  If you remove all
> reference to @deferRunning, it'll work the way I want.

:-)

> Well, it did work, but you're right, @deferRunning is pointless.  Code
> always looks different when you look at it a week later.  :-)

:-)

> I guess my question is, is it OK to pass blocks between threads like
> this?

Yes.  After all, a block is an object, isn't it?  And it does not contain
runtime information like a continuation does.  So there's never danger to
get threads mixed up.  I'm not sure about continuations.   Could be, that
you can't pass them around.

>  Also, am I doing the right thing with making it both a module and
> a class?

The class is superfluous.  It's not needed.

> 38% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Wrong: It's 53.5%. No, wait - it's 23.3%
....
:-)

Cheers

    robert