Re: [Chicken-users] Thread safe hash tables?

[Thomas Chust]

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Reed Sheridan wrote:

> [...]
> Why not just do something like:
>
>
> (define (make-locking-hash-table)
>  (cons (make-mutex) (make-hash-table)))
>
> (define (locking-hash-table-set! lht . args)
>  (dynamic-wind
>      (lambda () (mutex-lock! (car lht)))
>      (lambda () (apply hash-table-set! (cdr lht) args ))
>      (lambda () ...unlock it)))
> ?
>
> That seems better than using bazillions of dynamic-winds to me.
> [...]

Hello,

your approach is perfectly valid (although it results in the same amount 
of dynamic-wind blocks being processed as mine ;) but I prefer to make the 
scope of the locks explicit, because I do want to have more code than just 
the hash table access synchronized in some places.

Of course I don't spell out every dynamic-wind block. That's what macros 
are good for :)

cu,
Thomas