Re: MV Keys
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:14:02 +0100
Message-ID: <440cc231$0$11061$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
vc wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote: > [...]> >
>>Yep. So what should it be?
>
> I do not know -- you've devised the operation.
To much credit.
I let the operation (removeAt) operate on a differently
named list (OurSharedList instead of myList).
I did not devise it.
There is of course the conventional choice wether it should remove the third or the fourth item of the list, but beyond that I dont see much room for accidental misunderstanding by humans.
> My point is that concurrency is
> irrelevant whatever the operation is.
So it should be. But as you claim not to know what the operations' effect should be, you are unable to put that statement to the test for the operation under consideration.
>>>I was objecting to your invoking the ghost of concurrency:
>>>
>>>"Aside (the example surely illustrates your point)
>>>could this removeAt operation possibly be useful
>>>in a concurrent environment?
>>>"
>>
>>I see a difference in the use of indices
>>between a list under single control and a shared list.
>
> Why do you care about the implementation ?
Not for the moment.
For the moment I just care wether
it is implementable.
>>>I do not know whether the operation is useful per se, you tell me.
>>
>>Don't know really. Hmm... try:
>>
>>The contestants ended on 2nd place ex equo. For the ceremony add
>>a second prize for 2nd place, and remove the third prize (desired
>>effect: 2 silver medals, no bronze medal).
Received on Tue Mar 07 2006 - 00:14:02 CET