On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 08:40:27AM -0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > | Some experts (like Hans Boehm) argue, that concurrency can't be added > to > | the language as a library. > | http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-209.pdf > | > | This is true for many imperative programming languages. Haskell seems > | to be an exception: > | > http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2005-December/00 > 9417.html > > The interface can be a library, but (a) what libraries are available is > part of the language definition and (b) it's hard to build a good > implementation without runtime support. And the nature of the runtime > support depends on what the library interface is.
I forgot about runtime support. My point is that you we able to introduce a library/runtime support without changing the semantics of the language, and it works well. > So a programmer asks "can I write my Haskell' program using > concurrency?". To answer that question, concurrency needs to be > specified as part of Haskell', just as (say) Integer and its operations > do. [Of course, we can choose not to; and then Haskell' programs will > be single-threaded.] Yes, you are right. I was not entirely serious in my argumentation ;-) Even if concurrency is part of Haskell', it should still be clear that it doesn't affect the definition of non-concurrent Haskell' subset at all (is that true?). For example, all pure functions will be entirely thread-safe. Best regards Tomasz -- I am searching for programmers who are good at least in (Haskell || ML) && (Linux || FreeBSD || math) for work in Warsaw, Poland _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list [email protected] http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
