Re: What Part of Unspecified Does Kenny Not Understand?

usenet2.3.CalRobert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
writes:

> > > CLHS 18.2.11 maphash:
> > > "...The consequences are unspecified if any attempt is made to add
or
> > > remove an entry from the hash-table while a maphash is in progress,
> > > with two exceptions: the /function/ can...use remhash to remove that
> > > entry."
> > From: Juho Snellman <jsn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > The difference is between "an entry" and "that entry". You may
> > remove the key that the function was called with, you may not
> > remove any other keys.
> 
> That's my understanding too. I'm 99% sure KMP will agree.

Not that it matters at this point.  My opinion carries no additional
formal
weight.  But yes, that's the way I read the text.

> CLtL1 is more clear, but has a typo: Manually typing in from printed
page:
> "with one [sic] exception: if the function calls REMHASH to remove
>  the entry currently being processed by the function, or performs a
>  SETF of GETHASH on that entry to change the associated value."
> The im****tant more-clear phrase is "the entry currently being
processed".
> I wonder why KMP changed the language in the HyperSpec to be ever
> so slightly less obviously clear than how Steele had explained the
> same thing? Maybe KMP thought the new wording was less
> wordy/verbose/redundant/overkill/forDummies?

Probably brevity.  But I don't have a specific recollection.

FWIW, it doesn't look ambiguous to me.  "that entry" is a definite
reference and implies a uniquely determined referent.  In maphash, the
only two materially possible referents are to the entire set of
elements and to the object currently under consideration by the
function.  So the latter prevails in my personal dialect.  If you know
of another materially interesting interpretation, I'm curious.