On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:36:48 +0200 Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: [snip] > Excellent. Though I think that eventually we will want to bless one > of these concurrency patterns as the default one, we're a long way > away from that, and even if we do bless one I think we will always > want to allow people to experiment and deploy different ones. So, > great, glad to hear you are doing work in this area :)
A few things on that. First, there will always be a use for an event loop to do event-loopy things, irrespective of whether and how a coroutine interface is put around it. Sometimes you want to abstract things away, sometimes you don't. Secondly, as I understand it in the end you want pre-emptive "green" threads for guile, whereas my code equates to co-operative multi-tasking, whilst also working with native threads. I must come clean and say that I don't like "green" threads. Which leads on to the third point, which is that I would like to see guile match its words (in its documentation) with respect to native threads. I have found they work fine, with caution about shared global state. You think they don't, except possibly on intel, because some of its lock-free structures/variables -- and I think you are possibly referring to the VM here -- lack appropriate fences or other atomics. (The higher level C and scheme code has plainly had serious attempts at thread-safety made for it using mutexes.) Chris