Subject: Re: Challenging the deprecation of volatile compound statements
From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-02-18 10:47:36
On 18/02/2021 02.36, Paul M. Bendixen via SG14 wrote:
> So I've tried to incorporate the feedback given.
> I know I can have a tendency to ramble a bit in text so if the
> proposal is still not clear enough, please let me know.
> I've added a single example of usage in a library "from the wild", if
> further examples are required, I would like to know were they might
> I haven't added the "what do we expect from atomicity of compound
> expressions" section, as I frankly do no know what to expect other
> than it not breaking the hal that is often times _more_ important than
> the standard library.
> I'm still looking for any feedback this group may have.
Looks good to me. Thanks.
Please talk to Michael Wong for instructions how to turn this into
a P paper and submit it for a mailing.
SG14 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org
Older Archives on Google Groups