Eureka,
I claim to have written an implementation which agrees with all the semantics
that Simon Peyton-Jones wants for onCommit/onRetry/retryWith. See below:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | In many useful cases, such as the getLine example, the Y action will have
> its
> | own atomic {} block.
| In many useful cases, such as the getLine example, the Y action will have its
| own atomic {} block. In which case the semantics of when it is allowed to
| re-attempt X are what is important. If you require (Y) to complete before
| re-attempting (X) then you get an infinite regression where eve
Here I restate what you obviously know several times, then take a shot at
answering your final question.
Tim Harris (RESEARCH) wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> After seeing how close I could come to creating onRetry/retryWith I have a
>> question about the semantics of your idea for retryWith.
>>
>> Normally af
Hi,
> After seeing how close I could come to creating onRetry/retryWith I have a
> question about the semantics of your idea for retryWith.
>
> Normally after a retry the STM block is rolled back and put to sleep and
> will
> only be awakened and re-executed if one of the STM variables it had read
| Normally after a retry the STM block is rolled back and put to sleep and will
| only be awakened and re-executed if one of the STM variables it had read from
is
| committed to by a different STM block.
The *semantics* are that it is retried anytime in the future. The *pragmatics*
are as you d
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> I have also toyed with adding
>
> retryWith :: IO a -> STM ()
>
> The idea here is that the transction is undone (i.e. just like the 'retry'
combinator), then the specified action is performed, and then the transaction is
retried. Again no atomicity guarantee.
I posted an improved version of the new monad to the wiki at
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/New_monads/MonadAdvSTM
Observations:
** This idiom made it easy for the retrying case to queue an action which
ensures success in the next attempt.
** More than one operation can be queued for both the co
Hi,
I got this working on Mac OS X. I had to download media player 9:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/software/Macintosh/osx/default.aspx
This contains the WMV3 codec.
Cheers,
Chris.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, James William Pye wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 10:26:38AM +0100, Tomas
I was inspired by Simon's post to kludge up a working prototype that does what
is discussed:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | The basic idea is to provide a way for a transaction to call into
> transaction-aware libraries. The libraries
> | can register callbacks for if the transaction commits (to
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Claus
| Reinke
| Sent: 24 November 2006 12:22
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones; Tim Harris (RESEARCH)
| Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: [Haskell] Re: [Haskell-cafe] SimonPJ and Tim Harris explain STM-
video
|
| this thread reminds me about something that I wanted to ask you
this thread reminds me about something that I wanted to ask you.
if I recall correctly, most of the literature references in STM papers
are recent, so I wondered whether you are aware of this one:
NAMING AND SYNCHRONIZATION IN A
DECENTRALIZED COMPUTER SYSTEM
SourceTechnical Report: TR
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 10:31:27AM +0100, Lemmih wrote:
> Worked for me with mplayer+w32codecs.
Oops! I missed the "Download" link and tried to download through
"Watch" ;-) Thanks!
Best regards
Tomasz
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.o
On 11/24/06, Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 12:56:00PM -, Bayley, Alistair wrote:
> http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=231495
>
> The links to the video are a couple of yellow buttons at the bottom of
> the article: "Watch" or "Download".
>
> I h
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 12:56:00PM -, Bayley, Alistair wrote:
> http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=231495
>
> The links to the video are a couple of yellow buttons at the bottom of
> the article: "Watch" or "Download".
>
> I haven't watched this yet (it's nearly an hour long, I thi
I would just love to have some Haskell video casts. That would be awesome!
Cheers,
Johan
On 11/23/06, Bayley, Alistair wrote:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=231495
The links to the video are a couple of yellow buttons at the bottom of
the article: "Watch" or "Download".
I have
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 10:02:59AM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> That's where retryWith would help. Right now I am using something named
> autonomous transactions:
>
> autonomously :: Bool -> STM a -> STM ()
>
> This basically forks a new thread to perform the given transaction
> outside of
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 08:22:36AM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> I have also toyed with adding
>
> retryWith :: IO a -> STM ()
>
> The idea here is that the transction is undone (i.e. just like the 'retry'
> combinator), then the specified action is performed, and then the transacti
| The basic idea is to provide a way for a transaction to call into
transaction-aware libraries. The libraries
| can register callbacks for if the transaction commits (to actually do any
"O") and for if the transaction
| aborts (to re-buffer any "I" that the transaction has consumed). In
addit
Hi,
On 23/11/06, Benjamin Franksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One answer is in fact "to make it so that Console.Write can be rolled back
too". To achieve this one can factor the actual output to another task and
inside the transaction merely send the message to a transactional channel
(TChan):
range of things that can be done inside an atomic block.
Cheers,
Tim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benjamin Franksen
Sent: 24 November 2006 03:16
To: haskell@haskell.org
Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Subject: [Haskell] Re: [Haskell-cafe]
[sorry for quoting so much, kinda hard to decide here where to snip]
Cale Gibbard wrote:
> On 23/11/06, Jason Dagit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A comment on that video said:
>>
>> - BEGIN QUOTE
>> It seems to me that STM creates new problems with composability.
>> You create two class
On 23/11/06, Jason Dagit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A comment on that video said:
- BEGIN QUOTE
It seems to me that STM creates new problems with composability.
You create two classes of code: atomic methods and non atomic methods.
Nonatomic methods can easily call atomic ones – the
A comment on that video said:
- BEGIN QUOTE
It seems to me that STM creates new problems with composability.
You create two classes of code: atomic methods and non atomic methods.
Nonatomic methods can easily call atomic ones – the compiler could
even automatically inject the atomic
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=231495
The links to the video are a couple of yellow buttons at the bottom of
the article: "Watch" or "Download".
I haven't watched this yet (it's nearly an hour long, I think). Found
via reddit (http://reddit.com).
Haskeller's on TV (sort of...) woo
24 matches
Mail list logo
