From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Concurrent MVars for Guile Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 22:18:57 +0200 Message-ID: <87d2o7ryku.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87fvtn1wv8.fsf@tines.lan> <87wqmjmrl8.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1379449155 15356 80.91.229.3 (17 Sep 2013 20:19:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:19:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 17 22:19:19 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VM1jx-0001BA-Vs for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 22:19:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43286 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VM1jx-00023n-Ex for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:19:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33522) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VM1jp-00023f-Az for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:19:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VM1jk-0002TY-Ma for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:19:09 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:62613 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VM1jk-0002TU-Ip; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:19:04 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BAF9D10A; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:19:04 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=pLZfmK/OzUzG eV4i4CkSXuBiVEs=; b=SVHvOFopWi196Ue2RKi+idi1fXt3Q9uqc0dXV3BW8kjP VYOyTv6+7qVM14Dv0O05GY4rZE+4XSe9rozZ1xBnmNTw7sE7JJ5y+T/88vKR1hqf GX1CHF9NUaUHNKKhz/FeDo7Uuz8f5fGYalS7mTijH8uDt+3dLb7594AjC++/y7U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=unO3LK NmINyBmlzcZcoUpUmSPxvuDemtAVLGcTnhGRKaeUsTQEvFgWBCnsa6xR1ajCf5nu F/VT036rVhcC1eIPKwaStzLXESJoX05fFX9+JpgZmasvk5QGVhoeqpD/LvKPTuUq shGt52VhIest18z4HB/802OL7fXPyckXWbtjQ= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54ADCD109; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:19:04 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3840AD108; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:19:00 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87wqmjmrl8.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:59:47 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 637A5FF6-1FD6-11E3-A129-CE710E5B5709-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 208.72.237.25 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:16638 Archived-At: On Sat 14 Sep 2013 15:59, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > It looks like a useful tool to me. FWIW I totally agree! > I don=E2=80=99t like the name =E2=80=9Cmvar=E2=80=9D (=E2=80=9Cmonadic va= riable=E2=80=9D, I guess). Perhaps > =E2=80=9Csynchronized box=E2=80=9D, or =E2=80=9Ctransactional variable=E2= =80=9D, or...? The downside of > choosing another name is that people familiar with the concept won=E2=80= =99t > recognize it first-hand. I guess I can see this. I prefer "box" to "variable" fwiw. How about "tbox"? (The T for threadsafe or transactional or something; perhaps this is a bad idea.) Dunno :) Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/