Atomic ets

Thomas Lindgren <>
Mon Dec 19 15:51:26 CET 2005



--- Ulf Wiger <> wrote:

> Den 2005-12-14 20:29:03 skrev Thomas Lindgren
> <>:
> 
> > 5. Introduce a magical new API more suited for
> > concurrent/atomic ets. Drawback: it doesn't exist
> yet
> > :-)
> 
> You'd think that with a functional language, there
> should be a way to write code that is verifiably
> 'shallow' (no loops, no side effects - or, in this
> case, only allowed side effects). This is
> essentially,
> what we want for the match specifications (replacing
> the ms_transform module), for mnesia transactions
> (where the manual kindly asks us to write pure code)
> and perhaps for atomic ets. If a function could be
> tagged as (conditionally) safe, one could offer an
> 'atomic' construct and have it execute only such
> code.

This might be a viable approach; how about permitting
pattern matching, guards, and bodies where the only
function calls are to BIFs? Receive might be excluded,
but case/if should be okay since no loops. Atomicity
will have to support abort/undo as well.

Nice support for match specifications and associated
"codelets" would be great too.

Best,
Thomas


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list