From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Universally-unique gensyms Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:30:06 -0500 Message-ID: <87d3agy4g1.fsf@netris.org> References: <87hazu1msh.fsf@netris.org> <87ehuyh1nf.fsf@pobox.com> <87ipk9zba2.fsf@netris.org> <87d3agu1rt.fsf@gnu.org> <87y5t4ejkz.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1326929462 4035 80.91.229.12 (18 Jan 2012 23:31:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:31:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 19 00:30:58 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rney2-0005Je-Gx for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:30:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52037 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rney1-0001AH-Mv for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:30:57 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43444) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnexy-00019h-JM for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:30:55 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnexx-0001Lz-FT for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:30:54 -0500 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:35820) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnexx-0001Lv-7v; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:30:53 -0500 Original-Received: from c-98-216-245-176.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.216.245.176] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnexr-0001Rc-Rp; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:30:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87y5t4ejkz.fsf@pobox.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:23:24 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 96.39.62.75 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:13577 Archived-At: Andy Wingo writes: > Sorry for asking a stupid question, but why is it that we want the > gensym counter to be thread-local? Just to avoid the mutex? TBH I > don't think it's that big of a point of contention. This risks > devolution into bike-shed-landia tho... It's a reasonable question. I don't feel strongly about it, but I prefer lock-free programming where practical, and in this case there's really no need for coordination between threads. Indeed, these UUIDs are already designed to avoid collisions between multiple _sessions_ without coordination. So why bother with the lock? Mark