| there are interesting problems in FDs, but it seems that the
confluence
| problems were merely problems of the old translation, not anything
| inherent in FDs! I really had hoped we had put that phantom to rest.
Claus
You're doing a lot of work here, which is great. Why not write a paper?
On 12 April 2006 17:51, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By infinite loop, you mean both non-terminating, and non-productive.
A non-terminating but productive pure computation (e.g. ones =
1:ones) is not necessarily a problem.
That's slightly odd terminology.
John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Checking thread local state for _every_ foregin call is definitly
not an option either. (but for specificially annotated ones it is
fine.)
BTW, does Haskell support foreign code calling Haskell in a thread
which the Haskell runtime has not seen before?
This is just a heads up that I'm currently collating the current state
of the discussion re: concurrency and the FFI, with a view to
enumerating all the current issues with rationale on the wiki. It's
getting to a state where I can't keep it all in my head at one time, and
I think this will help
On 13 April 2006 10:53, John Meacham wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 09:46:03AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
You seem to be assuming more about cooperative scheduling than eg.
Hugs provides. I can easily write a thread that starves the rest of
the system without using any _|_s. eg.
let
Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
On Apr 11, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Yes, I realize than dynamic idempotence is not the same as
cycle detection. I still worry. :)
I think expectance is in the eye of the beholder. The reason
that (the pure subset of) pH was a proper
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 05:50:40PM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
The argument John was making is that this is a useful distinguishing
point to tell whether your concurrent implementation is cooperative or
preemptive. My argument is that, even if you can distinguish them in
this way, it is not
On 13 April 2006 10:02, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Checking thread local state for _every_ foregin call is definitly
not an option either. (but for specificially annotated ones it is
fine.)
BTW, does Haskell support foreign code calling
I have now summarised the concurrency proposal status, here:
http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/Concurren
cy
I have tried to summarise the various points that have arisen during the
discussion. If anyone feels they have been mis-paraphrased, or I have
forgotten
Hello,
On 4/12/06, Claus Reinke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that's why Ross chose a fresh variable in FD range position:
in the old translation, the class-based FD improvement rule no
longer applies after reduction because there's only one C constraint
left, and the instance-based FD improvement
Hello,
The wiki page says that we should alert the committee about
inaccuracies etc of pages, so here are some comments about the page on
FDs
(http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/FunctionalDependencies)
1) The example for non-termination can be simplified to:
f = \x y - (x .*.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 12:07:53PM -0700, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
On 4/12/06, Claus Reinke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that's why Ross chose a fresh variable in FD range position:
in the old translation, the class-based FD improvement rule no
longer applies after reduction because there's only
On Apr 12, 2006, at 4:25 PM, John Meacham wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 09:21:10AM -0400, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
Though, to be fair, an awful lot of Prelude code didn't work in pH
unless it was re-written to vary slightly from the specification. So
the assumption of laziness was more
What other libraries should Haskell' support, and what are their
requirements?
useful initiative! will your collection be available anywhere?
may I suggest that you (a) ask on the main Haskell and library lists
for better coverage (I would have thought that the alternative Num
prelude
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 05:10:36PM -0700, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
I understand the reduction steps. Are you saying that the problem is
that the two sets are not syntactically equal? To me this does not
seem important: we just end up with two different ways to say the same
thing (i.e.,
John Meacham writes:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 11:35:09AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 11 April 2006 11:08, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 11:03:22AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
This is a rather useful extension, and as far as I can tell it
doesn't have a ticket yet:
16 matches
Mail list logo
