On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Arnar Birgisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I come into this discussion late. One-place buffers, or MVars,
> are indeed implemented over STM in the orignal paper [1].
Yes, I should have remembered that. It's ok just as long as
there's a buffer there because then there's a consistent
*memory* state that can be awaited. But using an unbuffered
channel, we need to await the state of another *process*,
so we can rendezvous with it, something that is not possible
in principle with STM.
> Is that what you seek?
It's useful, thanks, but not really what I was originally looking for.
Synchronous channels are generally easier to reason about (less states
to deal with).
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Andrea Vezzosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd rather say that STM is intended to be used just for building up
> transactions
It seems to me then that, despite the existence of the very elegant STM,
there's still room for a commonly used set of transactions outside of it,
with as many as possible within STM, along the lines of the SyncChan snippet
you posted earlier.
By the way, where does FRP (which I haven't got my head around yet)
sit with respect
to STM?
cheers,
rog.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
