From p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk  Mon Jun 14 19:03:02 1999
From: p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk (Peter Dalgaard BSA)
Date: 14 Jun 1999 20:03:02 +0200
Subject: definition of R_problem_buf in S.h (PR#210)
In-Reply-To: Duncan Temple Lang's message of "Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:37:22 -0400"
References: <199906141736.TAA01099@pubhealth.ku.dk>
Message-ID: <x2vhcqek2x.fsf@blueberry.kubism.ku.dk>

Duncan Temple Lang <duncan@rice.research.bell-labs.com> writes:

> I would vote for (2). If we go to multiple evaluators as some of us
> were discussing recently, evaluator-specific statics will need to be
> removed.

Hm. That won't help, will it? We'd have one static object instead
of several. If threads try to step on eachothers toes it wouldn't
prevent it, just allow them to do it from within different functions!

What one would really need is a way to generate the buffer
dynamically *inside* the function call. Or setup PROBLEM to do some
kind of resource locking, in which case it doesn't really matter
whether we use (1) or (2)? Or...?

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


definition of R_problem_buf in S.h (PR#210)
Peter Dalgaard BSA