Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote: [snip] > The requirement could be even stronger, that the integers are > increasing, so one can compare relative time of IO events without Absolutely not. If you have 5000 processors, how are they to work out which one did an IO event first? I don't really see the point anyway. I definitely prefer my abstract "Unique" type. Easy to implement efficiently on any conceivable system. Also it means whoever writes the definition doesn't have to worry about whether to use "Int" or "Integer". (If someone writes a server in Haskell which manages to stay up for years it could very easily overflow Int . . .)
- 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
- 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
- Re: Trivial Haskell Concurrency problem George Russell