I think everyone is keen to make progress on this bound-threads stuff. You have an alternative idea which we are trying to understand. Do you plan to have a go at the operational semantics, as a way of explaining it?
Sorry for not having replied. I am very busy finishing my thesis and I can't look into it sooner than next week. The thesis-finishing business is in any case taking so much time that I can't really help out on implementation or other time consuming activities.
However, my proposal is not anywhere fundamentally difficult -- in its essence, I just propose to move the implementation of the thread allocation strategy from the RTS/C code, to a Haskell library. This gives programmers both a low-level interface for explicit access and a high-level interface as it is now.
At the moment we're a bit stuck: no one wants to move on before we have some kind of consensus, but you're the only one who can help us understand your proposal.
Well, it is not my intention to stop progress! I haven't fully worked out my design, for example, it seems that dynamic rescheduling of haskell threads to OS threads is rather difficult -- I can only say more about this next week.
What I mostly wanted to ensure is that people have really thought about this carefully and that they could give strong reasons for choosing a particular design over another. If you feel that this is the case -- by all means continue as you have done and disregard my disturbances.
All the best, Daan.
Simon
| -----Original Message----- | From: Simon Peyton-Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: 17 March 2003 22:06 | To: Daan Leijen; Wolfgang Thaller; [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: Bound Threads | | | | | Maybe, the forkOS/forkIO approach is flawed, but I think we | | should only rule it out when we can provide a convincing | | example where only the keyword approach would work, and where | | we can't use combinators to achieve the same effect. | | | Daan, | | There has been extended discussion on this stuff, which Wolfgang and | Simon and I tried to boil out into a document. It's hard to say exactly | what 'safe' or 'bound' exports, or whatever, might mean, so we give a | little operational semantics. | | My hope is that the very same operational-semantic framework would serve | to describe your system. Would you like to write its transition rules, | in the same style? Then we could compare the two more easily. Without | that, I am hard pressed to understand the implications of what you | suggest, just as I was hard pressed to understand Wolfgang's proposal | till we had it specified. | | You can find the document in the CVS respository in | haskell-report/ffi/threads.tex | | Simon
_______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
