On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:56:41AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Fair enough - I take that as a vote for a concurrency addendum.
Actually, I think there is a lot we can standardize in a portable way
when it comes to concurrency without compromising the ability for any
compiler to implement it and I think it would be very worthwhile to do
so. in the report proper.
>
> I think it's a bit unfair to talk about "GHC-style concurrency". There
> are many different ways to implement exactly what GHC currently
> provides. In fact, we were very careful when designing it to ensure
> that this was the case:
yeah, when I say GHC style concurrency, I mean the interface that ghc
has. forkIO,MVar, etc... as opposed to event-loop, O'Haskell, expliticly
scheduled, manual continuations, etc.. but I have been clumsy about
whether I mean cooperative or fully-preemptive by GHC-style. I'll try to
make that clear.
John
--
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
