Taral wrote:
On 12/7/06, Chris Kuklewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Small clarification: You don't need a safepoint in your code. But
"unblock
yield" is the right code for a safepoint; the "unblock (return ())"
suggested by
the published paper *does not work* in my small test, while "unblock
yield"
worked every time in a small test. Simon may updated the documentation
eventually to reflect this.
I think people are misunderstanding the nature of a safepoint. The
safepoint is a point at which you are prepared to have exceptions
delivered. This does not mean that they *will* be delivered, just that
they can. If you need to *wait* for an asynchronous exception, then
you shouldn't be using them at all.
Right. If a thread mostly runs inside 'block' with the occasional safe point,
then your exceptions are not really asynchronous, they're synchronous.
In this case, I'd say a better solution is to have an explicit event queue, and
instead of the safe point take an event from the queue. The action on receiving
an event can be to raise an exception, if necessary.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
