On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 10:33:06PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 10:25:49PM +0100, Remi Turk wrote: > > > BTW, I have an implementation of STM based entirely on old concurrency > > > primitives, which means that it will work in older GHC and probably in > > > other Haskell compilers. I am going to put it on my web site, when I get > > > one. > > > > Cool :) > > Is it actually race/deadlock/othergeneralnastiness-free? > > It should be, but there may be bugs of course. > I know there are some possible space leaks, but that's also fixable. > > > (as the paper claims that e.g. mergeIO :: [IO a] -> IO a is > > unimplementable in anything built on mutexes and condition > > variables.) > > My STM monad is not IO, it has the same restrictions as STM in the > paper. The paper doesn't claim you can't implement mergeSTM :: [STM a] > -> STM a mergeSTM = msum
Ugh, I should've read what I copied... *nitpick* in the paper merge is defined using foldr1, which errors when given an empty list, as opposed to msum, which merely retries. > Also, the STM in GHC 6.4 is written in C. Do you think that Haskell's > IO monad lacks some things needed to write this thing? I can tell you > there are some problems with types, but they can be solved in a more or > less standard way. > > Best regards > Tomasz I don't, though I'm probably not qualified to vote ;) Groeten, Remi P.S. And don't forget to post a link when you put it online. -- Nobody can be exactly like me. Even I have trouble doing it. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
