Answer till 3.45

ex-2_73-76.scm

@@ -2,6 +2,12 @@
 
 (newline) (display "ex-2.73 - deriv data-directed") (newline)
 
+(define *op-table* (make-hash-table))
+(define (put op type proc)
+  (hash-table/put! *op-table* (list op type) proc))
+(define (get op type)
+  (hash-table/get *op-table* (list op type) #f))
+
 (display "a. - see comments\n")
 ; a.
 

ex-3_38-45.scm

@@ -1,5 +1,3 @@
-(load "util.scm")
-
 (display "\nex-3.38\n")
 (display "[answered]\n")
 
@@ -63,8 +61,8 @@
 
 ; Ben's concern does not apply. Say, we have a withdraw and a balance check.
 ; Depending on the order of execution the balance check would show the balance
-; before or after the withdraw. This behavior is expectected and would not be
-; migated by serializing balance.
+; before or after the withdraw. This behavior is expected and would not be
+; avoided by serializing balance.
 
 (display "\nex-3.42\n")
 (display "[answered]\n")
@@ -73,6 +71,39 @@
 ; model of how the serializer works, yet.
 
 (display "\nex-3.43\n")
+(display "[answered]\n")
+
+; A swap of account balances maintains each individual balance. Hence, only the
+; order of $10, $20, $30 can change and not the value.
+
+;   a      b     c
+; $10    $20   $30 (swap a b = 10) (swap a c = 20)
+; $20    $10   $30
+; $40    $10   $10
+
+; The sum of balances will be preserved because the exchange procedure deposits
+; what it withdraws. That works because it calculates `difference` before doing
+; the transactions.
+
+; If the individual transactions would not be serialized we could run into a
+; situation where (swap a c) overrides a to be $30, for example, as we have
+; seen in previous exercises.
 
 (display "\nex-3.44\n")
+(display "[answered]\n")
+
+; Louis Reasoner is wrong. Assuming the balance on from-account is high enough
+; transfer is going to work. The essential difference is that executing a list
+; of transactions of absolute amounts is commutative. Exchange, on the other,
+; is not commutative. On exchange has to finish before another one and the
+; order matters.
+
+(display "\nex-3.45\n")
+(display "[answered]\n")
+
+; When serialized-exchange is call it tries to serialize the deposit and
+; withdraw calls that are already serialized by the same serializer. That would
+; result in a deadlock because because the outer serialized procedure would
+; have to call the inner serialized procedure and they cannot be executed at
+; the same time because they are serialized by the same serializer.
 

ex-3_46-xx.scm

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+(load "util.scm")
+
+(display "\nex-3.46\n")
+
+(display "\nex-3.47\n")
+
+(display "\nex-3.48\n")
+