[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety
From: |
Marius Vollmer |
Subject: |
Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:03:33 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Richard Todd <address@hidden> writes:
> 1) If you are worried about thread safety, the most fool-proof C
> interface probably does not allow separate access to numerator and
> denominator, since they need to be read in one atomic operation to
> ensure consistent results in the face of other mutating code.
Guile fractions can not mutated in general: they always represent one
value. The mutation that might take place is a reduction, but that
might only happen once. After a fraction is reduced, it stays that
way. So when you have a reduced fraction you can safely return the
nominator, say, without having to worry that a later access to the
denominator will return something bogus.
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
- Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety, Marius Vollmer, 2004/01/10
- Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety, Kevin Ryde, 2004/01/10
- Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety, Marius Vollmer, 2004/01/10
- Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety, Marius Vollmer, 2004/01/20
- Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety, Carl Witty, 2004/01/20
- Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety, Marius Vollmer, 2004/01/21
- Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety, Dirk Herrmann, 2004/01/27
- Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety, Rob Browning, 2004/01/27
- Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety, Marius Vollmer, 2004/01/29
- Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety, Rob Browning, 2004/01/29
- Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2004/01/30