---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de>
Date: Mi., 14. Nov. 2018 um 07:47 Uhr
Subject: Re: SRFI 161 draft #2 minor comments
To: Sudarshan S Chawathe <xxxxxx@eip10.org>


Dear Sudarshan,

thank you very much for taking your time and going through this SRFI proposal carefully.

  - (Question) The document notes, "It is an error if two threads
    access the same equivalence class of unifiable boxes at the same
    time."  Does (or should) that mean it is guaranteed not an error
    for two threads to access distinct equivalence classes
    concurrently?

It should mean that it is guaranteed not an error for two threads to access distinct equivalence classes concurrently. Otherwise, algorithms using unifiable boxes couldn't be paralleled. I am adding this explicitly.

  - (minor) It may be helpful to include the keywords "union-find" and
    "disjoint-set" in the abstract so that someone looking for a
    union-find data structure will be led to this SRFI.  The Rationale
    mentions it right away, of course, but some (tools/people) may
    only search abstracts.

That's a good point. Adding a paragraph to the abstract that mentions these keywords.
 

  - (minor) It may be helpful to explicitly mention that the return
    values of ubox-set!, ubox-unify!, ubox-union!, and ubox-link! are
    unspecified (perhaps just once for all of them).

Likewise a good point. Adding this.
 
Regards,

Marc


Regards,

-chaw