> > Thinking about it some. I think we will need some sort of very basic > > thread priorities. > > I'd rather not, if we can avoid it.
Agreed. If someone wants to provide them as an optional extra, fine. (We had thread priorities In concurrent embedded Gofer, a long time ago. They can certainly be useful when interfacing with hardware, but there are other ways to achieve the same goals.) As Simon says: > Priorities come with a whole can of worms that I'd rather not deal with. They certainly do. Unintentional priority inversion is the most basic problem, covered early in any course on real-time systems. > threadSetPriority :: ThreadID -> Int -> IO () In any case, if priorities were to be introduced, I would not use Ints to represent them. How many priority levels are sufficient? A partial ordering between ThreadIDs would be preferable. Sometimes priorities are genuinely incomparable, so there is no point in forcing a particular ordering. Regards, Malcolm _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime