Re: Strings, one last detail.

[bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Tom Lord wrote:

>    Bear wrote:
>    > We need to warn them of this because the write-through question is not
>    > possible to solve just one way or the other.  Explicitly supporting
>    > direct write-through mutation is in fact not even possible for
>    > implementations that must provide SCHEME_EXTRACT_STRING by means of
>    > copying/translating some other internal representation,
>
>The lock/unlock pattern can solve it -- not in the general case but in
>a useful way -- and is quite portable.
>

This is true -- but impossible within the context of the current draft of
the SRFI because there is no call to hang the unlock() method on.

				Bear