Parallel-safe lambdas

[Stephen Colebourne]

On 11 February 2010 03:29, Alex Buckley <Alex.Buckley at sun.com> wrote:
>I don't know why you're wasting time with fake rules that do.
> But if all you're going to do is argue with the goal of the project,
> unsubscribe.

Actually, if you read the other responses in this thread you'll see
quite divergent views on how important or not the parallel use case
is, and whether it should or shouldn't constrain the solution - as
such, I feel the exercise was extremely valuable.

You have indicated that the parallel array use case is "primary", but
what is still unclear is to what extent that statement means
compromise in other use cases. If it is the primary one, what is the
"secondary" one? What relative importance attaches to the "secondary"
use case versus the "primary" one?

These seem to be important questions. If the "primary" parallel use
case is 99%, then as a whole, this mailing list should be designing
for safety and against data races. And then the "strawman" above
doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Stephen