On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 05:31:04PM -0800, isaac jones wrote: > I have no idea if it would work, but one solution that Simon didn't > mention in his enumeration (below) is that we could find a group of > people willing to work hard to implement concurrency in Hugs, for > example, under Ross's direction.
I'm no expert on Hugs internals, and certainly not qualified to direct such an effort, but I don't have great hopes for it. Apart from the fact that Hugs is written in a legacy language and uses a quite a bit of global state, it also makes heavy use of the C stack, and any implementation that does that will have trouble, I think. I think it's clear that the proposed concurrency model is feasible for some implementations but not for others. I've been assuming that Haskell' was intended to encompass a wide range of implementations. If that's the case, the key point is that a Haskell' module that does not use concurrency, but is thread-safe, ought to work with non-concurrent implementations too. To make that work, we'd need two interfaces: * one for applications that make use of concurrency. This would be unavailable on some implementations. * one for thread-safe use of state. This would be available on all implementations, and authors not requiring concurrency would be encouraged to use it for maximum portability. _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list [email protected] http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
