Re: Race-condition in alternative 'System.Timeout.timeout' implementation

2013-02-25 Thread Bertram Felgenhauer
Bertram Felgenhauer wrote: > Dear Herbert, > > I've been experimenting with an alternative implementation of > > 'System.Timeout.timeout'[1] which avoids the overhead of spawning a new > > thread for each invocation. > > (I have more to say on this, but will postpone it until later. A lot > of it

Re: Race-condition in alternative 'System.Timeout.timeout' implementation

2013-02-25 Thread Akio Takano
I accidentally replied to Herbert privately. I'm forwarding the message to the list. - Takano Akio -- Forwarded message -- From: Akio Takano Date: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:15 PM Subject: Re: Race-condition in alternative 'System.Timeout.timeout' implementation To: Herbert Valerio R

Re: base package -- goals

2013-02-25 Thread Johan Tibell
Hi all, Let me add the goals I had in mind last time I considered trying to split base. 1. I'd like to have text Handles use the Text type and binary Handles use the ByteString type. Right now we have this somewhat awkward setup where the I/O APIs are spread out and bundled with pure types. Spli

Re: base package -- goals

2013-02-25 Thread Ian Lynagh
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 06:38:46PM +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: > Ian Lynagh writes: > > [...] > > > If we did that then every package would depend on haskell2010, which > > is fine until haskell2013 comes along and they all need to be changed > > (or miss out on any improvements that we

Re: base package -- goals

2013-02-25 Thread Herbert Valerio Riedel
Ian Lynagh writes: [...] > If we did that then every package would depend on haskell2010, which > is fine until haskell2013 comes along and they all need to be changed > (or miss out on any improvements that were made). ...wouldn't there also be the danger of type(class)-incompatible (e.g. the

Re: base package -- goals

2013-02-25 Thread Ian Lynagh
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:29:42AM -0500, Stephen Paul Weber wrote: > Somebody claiming to be Ian Lynagh wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 02:31:56PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > >>In any case there is still the problem: What and where is the Prelude... > >>but maybe let’s postpone this. > > >

Re: base package -- goals

2013-02-25 Thread Stephen Paul Weber
Somebody claiming to be Roman Cheplyaka wrote: * Stephen Paul Weber [2013-02-25 11:29:42-0500] Why shouldn't Prelude (and other really stable, standard modules) just live in the `haskell2010` package? Because then we can't make changes to it without producing a new language standard. That s

Re: base package -- goals

2013-02-25 Thread Roman Cheplyaka
* Stephen Paul Weber [2013-02-25 11:29:42-0500] > Why shouldn't Prelude (and other really stable, standard modules) > just live in the `haskell2010` package? Because then we can't make changes to it without producing a new language standard. Roman ___

Re: base package -- goals

2013-02-25 Thread Stephen Paul Weber
Somebody claiming to be Ian Lynagh wrote: On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 02:31:56PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: In any case there is still the problem: What and where is the Prelude... but maybe let’s postpone this. I'd put it in its own package for now, and then look at whether/what it should be

Re: base package -- goals

2013-02-25 Thread Ian Lynagh
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 02:31:56PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Hopefully the problem here (often-changing base) is big enough and the > alternative (more purpose-oriented and more stable) packages are > attractive enough to make people use the new set. I'm pretty confident that most packag

Re: base package -- goals

2013-02-25 Thread Ian Lynagh
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 02:25:03PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > | I added a Goals section to > | http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/SplitBase > > Thanks. But the first goal, which is the dominant one, is very unclear to me > as my comments mentioned. A description of what the proble

RE: base package -- goals

2013-02-25 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
| I added a Goals section to | http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/SplitBase Thanks. But the first goal, which is the dominant one, is very unclear to me as my comments mentioned. A description of what the problem is, and why a simple "API wrapper" approach would not solve it, would be us

Re: base package -- goals

2013-02-25 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, Am Samstag, den 23.02.2013, 10:27 + schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones: > I’d like to be very clear about goals, though. I have not been > following this thread closely enough, but is there a Wiki page that > explains what the goals of the base-package break-up is? I added a Goals section to h

Re: Race-condition in alternative 'System.Timeout.timeout' implementation

2013-02-25 Thread Bertram Felgenhauer
Dear Herbert, > I've been experimenting with an alternative implementation of > 'System.Timeout.timeout'[1] which avoids the overhead of spawning a new > thread for each invocation. Be warned that timeouts are very intricate. We had a lengthy discussion on the topic 2 years ago, starting at ht

Re: Race-condition in alternative 'System.Timeout.timeout' implementation

2013-02-25 Thread Nathan Howell
You might want to take a look at https://github.com/alphaHeavy/timeout-control/blob/master/System/Timeout/Control.hs#L72too, though I'd guess it is subject to the same race condition. I have a few other fixes (for dealing with lifted bracket iirc) I still need to merge back from a private branch.