Hey Ludo,
> ‘par-map’ is implemented in terms of futures, and futures use their own > thread pool. What’s likely to block is ‘touch’: it essentially waits on > a condition variable, which Fibers cannot interrupt. I see, thanks for explaining. > Why not just replace ‘par-map’ with ‘map’? That sounds easier and I > suspect it doesn’t change much performance-wise. The objective was to still be able to run parallel input fetching, but you're right, a simple "map" is nicer. > (There’s a 2nd use of ‘par-map’ in that file.) Oh! Fixed too. Thanks for the quick answer, Mathieu
