[e-lang] Surprising consequences of pipelining added to Surprise List

[Kevin Reid]

On Jul 1, 2005, at 23:28, Kevin Reid wrote:

> Consider this code:
>
>   def coerced := (def guard := thing <- __getAllegedType()) <- 
> coerce(thing)
>
> If I understand pipelining correctly, since the 'coerce' message is 
> sent to a promise whose tail is in 'thing''s vat, that vat has the 
> opportunity to respond arbitrarily to it - and then resolve 'guard' to 
> a completely unrelated object! ...

(This has been discussed in previous messages, with the subject 
"Surprising consequences of pipelining?".)

I have added an entry about this to the E Surprise List I started 
earlier:

<http://homepage.mac.com/kpreid/elang/surprise.html#unresolved-behavior>

-- 
Kevin Reid                            <http://homepage.mac.com/kpreid/>