George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Sigbjorn Finne (Intl Vendor)" wrote:
> > Is it worth adding something like `yield' to the Concurrent
> > API? I'm unconvinced, but don't feel strongly about it. If
> > there are others that also think that it should be supported,
> > let me know,
"Sigbjorn Finne (Intl Vendor)" wrote:
> this is a Hugs(98) issue, when Hugs starts to use the new
> RTS, `yield' is approximately equivalent to a nop. Before
> that time, won't ConcBase.suspend do the trick?
Well it might do, but ConcBase doesn't export it . . .
I suppose I shall have to hack the
"Sigbjorn Finne (Intl Vendor)" wrote:
> Is it worth adding something like `yield' to the Concurrent
> API? I'm unconvinced, but don't feel strongly about it. If
> there are others that also think that it should be supported,
> let me know, and I'll change my mind :-)
Here are two reasons:
(1) Pre-
Hi,
this is a Hugs(98) issue, when Hugs starts to use the new
RTS, `yield' is approximately equivalent to a nop. Before
that time, won't ConcBase.suspend do the trick?
Is it worth adding something like `yield' to the Concurrent
API? I'm unconvinced, but don't feel strongly about it. If
there ar
GHC offers pre-emptive scheduling, so yield may be redundant.
But Hugs doesn't so it is vital. At the moment it looks like I shall
have to simulate it by creating an MVar () and swapMVar'ing it, but
that's not exactly ideal! So please could yield be provided? Thanks.
