On 12/15/05, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15 December 2005 13:17, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
>
> > Anyway, the main gist of my original post was that TArrays should be
> > in the libraries, so that I can safely use it without having to send
> > along my own implementation each time (an
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:17:18PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
> Wouldn't there be a speedup to do both writes and waiting at the array
> level, BUT annotated with an index?
I strongly vote to leave STM as it is, and implement TArray as a
library on top of it. STM implementation is probably alr
On 15 December 2005 13:17, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
> Anyway, the main gist of my original post was that TArrays should be
> in the libraries, so that I can safely use it without having to send
> along my own implementation each time (and potentially colliding with
> someone else's implementation d
On 12/14/05, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13 December 2005 14:52, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
> >> [In response to another plea for TArrays]
> >
> >> In the past I have used arrays of TVars, as Thomasz suggested. It
> >> would in
On 13 December 2005 14:52, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> [In response to another plea for TArrays]
>
>> In the past I have used arrays of TVars, as Thomasz suggested. It
>> would indeed be better to have a primitive STM array, the only
>> problem
