News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A threading riddle by davidtgoldblatt on Monday June 29, 2015 @05:20PM (#9801189)
My bad; Strilanc's interpretation is correct. I updated the wording to hopefully be a little clearer.
Re:A threading riddle by JadeNB on Monday June 29, 2015 @06:12PM (#9801510)
Thanks! While you're here, is oconnore (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9800705 )'s solution legal according to your rules?

EDIT: Also, the wording

> There's no way to read the values from the array, only to set them and compare them for equality

seems unchanged.

Re:A threading riddle by re on Monday June 29, 2015 @06:19PM (#9801551)
The preceding sentence was changed to be more explicit that the bullet points are about the "user-facing API" being unrealistic. They're not implementation rules/constraints.
Re:A threading riddle by davidtgoldblatt on Monday June 29, 2015 @07:07PM (#9801778)
I think his solution is a little bit tongue in cheek - it shows how much easier it is to solve using transactional memory compared to low-level concurrency primitives. So it cheats by using very powerful techniques instead of the very weak ones that the post says to use. You couldn't use his solution in C++ for instance, because C++ doesn't come with garbage collection or transactional memory.
Re:A threading riddle by JadeNB on Monday June 29, 2015 @07:49PM (#9801960)
I see; I don't know enough about concurrency to recognise the tongue-in-cheek-ness (or whatever). Thanks for explaining!