| This is something that I have long been wondering about | (perhaps it is just because of my ignorance): | Wouldn't stable pointers be a cheaper and more appropriate means | to get Ord for MVars, STRefs, and IORefs? Could be -- but do we really want to clog up the stable-pointer table with an entry for every MVar, whether or not anyone is interested in ordering? I think what you want is a distributed way to get a unique, as George suggested. Then you can pair that with an MVar when you want something comparable. The unique can include the processor id, so it can be globally unique. 64 bits? I'm still leery of putting such a unique inside every MVar, IORef etc. But maybe I shouldn't worry. Simon
- Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Tom Pledger
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Michael Hobbs
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Michael Hobbs
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Michael Hobbs
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem George Russell
- RE: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Simon Peyton-Jones
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem George Russell
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Wolfram Kahl
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem George Russell
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Simon Peyton-Jones
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Wolfram Kahl
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem George Russell
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem George Russell
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Michael Hobbs
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem George Russell
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Tom Pledger
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem George Russell
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem George Russell