On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Joe Marshall<[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Anton van > Straaten<[email protected]> wrote: >> Joe Marshall wrote: >>> Similarly with threads. These are a disaster. It is very hard to program >>> with >>> concurrency. It is harder still if your concurrancy mechanism is something >>> as primitive as a thread. In nearly every implementation of Common Lisp >>> I've worked on, they've made major errors in concurrency control. And these >>> are the *vendors*. The users have no hope of getting it right. >>> >>> I don't know what the correct solution to concurrency is, but I'm sure we >>> can do better than a thread library. >> >> I don't know what the correct solution to control flow is, but I'm sure >> we can do better than first-class continuations. > > Agreed. Although this could be interpreted in two different ways, both of > which > I agree with. > > 1. Easier to understand user constructs such as structured > exceptions, non-local > exits, co-operative co-routines, etc. should be what users turn to > rather than ad-hoc grabbing of continuations. > > 2. First-class continuations should NOT be used as a model or > implementation of threads. (You can crudely mimic time-division > multiplexing, but not true asynchronous parallel computation.)
Is this part of the language specification or the "standard library"? _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
