4 ms·
My bad; Strilanc's interpretation is correct. I updated the wording to hopefully be a little clearer.
by davidtgoldblatt 11y ago
My bad; Strilanc's interpretation is correct. I updated the wording to hopefully be a little clearer.
- JadeNB 11y agoThanks! While you're here, is oconnore (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9800705 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 11y agoThe 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.
- davidtgoldblatt 11y agoI 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.
- JadeNB 11y agoI see; I don't know enough about concurrency to recognise the tongue-in-cheek-ness (or whatever). Thanks for explaining!