> On Nov 30, 2019, at 20:52, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > > They are, as long as any invoked `dynamic-wind` thunks are safe in > atomic mode. (After all, `unsafe-abort-current-continuation/no-wind` > and `unsafe-call-with-composable-continuation/no-wind` were created to > support `unsafe/try-atomic`.)
Alright, thanks, that does make sense. I think it’s still probably not the right solution, since the idea is that effect handlers ought to be implementable in user code, and I wouldn’t want to ask users to regularly interact with atomic mode. Maybe it can play a role in a safe abstraction, though. Also, I realized shortly after I wrote my last email that I actually did see an effect system paper a while back that addressed these issues: “Algebraic Effect Handlers with Resources and Deep Finalization” by Daan Leijen. Looking at it again, it even cites Sitaram’s “Unwind-protect in portable Scheme” article I mentioned earlier! I may have forgotten about it because it appears to have only ever been released as a Microsoft Research technical report, not published at any academic conference. In any case, I didn’t really understand it when I first saw it, so I need to reread it more carefully, but an initial skim seems promising. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/E6F8DAA0-8CF6-4745-B071-AAC1BFB3D880%40gmail.com.
