Or I shoul have read it completely before replying. :)

Sent from my phone - apologies for substandard spelling and formatting.

On Jan 22, 2013 2:36 PM, "James M. Lawrence" <llmjjmll@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Nikodemus Siivola
<nikodemus@random-state.net> wrote:
> On 22 January 2013 02:21, James M. Lawrence <llmjjmll@gmail.com> wrote:
>> LIST-QUEUE-CONTENTS doesn't have a clear meaning, of course. It's akin
>> to sending a runner down a magical track in which the finish line is
>> receding away from him while the starting line is chasing him. He
>> can't tell us how long the track was at any given time, he can only
>> tell us how many steps he took and what he saw.
> Given that all operations that need to traverse the queue are there
> primarily for debugging, I would /really/ hate to try to see what was
> in queue and be told it was empty when it wasn't.
> If these operations don't retry till they succeed, they must fail in a
> way that allows the user to know what happened. (An error with
> restarts to retry once or "as long as necessary" would work for me.)

We are already on the same page -- I said the way to prevent unwanted
spinning is to return fail flag along with the partial contents
(otherwise we throw away information). But I said I wasn't actually
proposing that since spinning isn't a concern in practice. I should
have written a shorter email.