On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:37:44 +0200, I wrote:
> Hi Bert,
>
> on Sat, 26 May 2007 16:22:30 +0200, you wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 14:12:59 +0200, Damien Cassou wrote:
>>> Thank you for this comments. That was what I was afraid of. Is it
>>> possible to have test that will show #nextPutAll: is not protected?
>>
>> I'm not convinced #nextPutAll: should be atomic. It would mean a  
>> consumer cannot start processing queued items before all elements are  
>> written. Right now, #nextPutAll: uses #nextPut:
>

Sorry, this should read:
> In the example Damien used in this thread and in the implementation of
Say Damien used String in his examples ...

/Klaus

> #nextPutAll: in Nile and the classic WriteStream on String, #nextPut: is  
> not used by #nextPutAll:.
>
> Instead, #nextPutAll: updates at least one or more instance variables  
> (besides appending the elements of the argument). This all together must  
> be atomic, otherwise the system will be blown up.
>
> /Klaus
>
>
>