On Dec 16, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Matthew D Swank wrote: > Brian Mastenbrook wrote: >> I guess my point is that concurrency goes beyond mutexes, conditions, >> and thread creation. Those things are necessary to making concurrency >> work. But making it work *right* is difficult in practice on one >> platform. >> >> > > Well, I it should be possible to start small and provide a consistent > interface to "mutexes, conditions, and thread creation" across > implementations (which I suppose clim does). It'll be broken, but at > least it'll be consistent.
An interesting gardening project would be to write up a survey of the primitives that *are* provided by different implementations. It'd be handy to know whether they are subsets/supersets or completely disjoint. Is there any common denominator? Can implementation X's concurrency primitives be implemented in terms of those provided by implementation Y or vice versa? That kind of thing. Does someone want to take this on? [RFG is an acronym I just made up, it stands for Request for Gardener.] -Peter -- Peter Seibel * [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/ Practical Common Lisp * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
