Nice initiative!
By the way, since this is a monad, I think a better place than
Control.Concurrent.Forkable would be Control.Monad.Forkable.
It's just a suggestion.
2010/4/21 David Anderson d...@natulte.net
Dear Haskellers,
I'm happy, and only slightly intimidated, to announce the initial
Hi,
This is quite a neat generalisation of forkIO, and something I've wanted
in the past.
My comment would be about the MonadIO m requirement for ForkableMonad.
I understand that conceptually it's a nice thing to have. But
practically, I don't think it's necessary, and could be a little
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Limestraël limestr...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice initiative!
Thanks!
By the way, since this is a monad, I think a better place than
Control.Concurrent.Forkable would be Control.Monad.Forkable.
It's just a suggestion.
I'm not entirely happy with the location with
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Neil Brown nc...@kent.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
This is quite a neat generalisation of forkIO, and something I've wanted in
the past.
My comment would be about the MonadIO m requirement for ForkableMonad. I
understand that conceptually it's a nice thing to have.
Dear Haskellers,
I'm happy, and only slightly intimidated, to announce the initial
release of forkable-monad.
The short version is that forkable-monad exports a replacement forkIO
that lets you do this:
type MyMonad = ReaderT Config (StateT Ctx IO)
startThread :: MyMonad ThreadId
startThread =
