On 3/29/06, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -- The reference contains a rollback action to be executed on exceptions
> > newtype STM a = STM (IORef (IO ()) -> IO a)
>
> Cute, but why use an IORef?
>
> newtype STM a = STM (IO () -> IO a)
O
On 3/29/06, Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -- The reference contains a rollback action to be executed on exceptions
> newtype STM a = STM (IORef (IO ()) -> IO a)
Cute, but why use an IORef?
newtype STM a = STM (IO () -> IO a)
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
On 29 March 2006 11:00, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:25:04AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> On 28 March 2006 00:24, Ross Paterson wrote:
>>> How about STM (minus retry/orElse) and TVars as the portable
>>> interface? They're trivial for a single-threaded implementation, and
>>>
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:25:04AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 28 March 2006 00:24, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > How about STM (minus retry/orElse) and TVars as the portable
> > interface? They're trivial for a single-threaded implementation, and
> > provide a comfortable interface for everyone.
>
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 03:36:55PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> But before we get carried away figuring out all the pros and cons of
> various options, let me point out once again that
>
> This is just a marketing decision
>
> Because
>
> (a) we're going to standardise concurrency anyway
c
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 15:36 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 26 March 2006 02:31, isaac jones wrote:
>
> > Possible Interests:
> > 1. I can write tools like filesystems, web servers, and GUIs in
> > Haskell'
> > 2. Libraries that I use are thread-safe
> > 3. I can compile my code with any Haskel
Malcolm Wallace:
> "Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > (a) we're going to standardise concurrency anyway
>
> Well, but that only begs the question, what *kind* of concurrency are we
> going to standardise on? e.g. Will we admit all variations of scheduling
> (co-operative, time-slic
Simon Marlow:
> On 26 March 2006 03:44, Ross Paterson wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 05:31:04PM -0800, isaac jones wrote:
> >> I have no idea if it would work, but one solution that Simon didn't
> >> mention in his enumeration (below) is that we could find a group of
> >> people willing to w
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 03:36:55PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> This is just a marketing decision
Oh dear.
> Yes there are several ramifications of this decision, but none of them
> are technical. As I see it, we either specify Concurrency as an
> addendum, or NoConcurrency as an addendum, and
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:14:27AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 28 March 2006 00:24, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > As Malcolm pointed out, using MVars requires some care, even if you
> > were just aiming to be thread-safe.
>
> I don't really understand the problem, maybe I'm missing something. I
>
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (a) we're going to standardise concurrency anyway
Well, but that only begs the question, what *kind* of concurrency are we
going to standardise on? e.g. Will we admit all variations of scheduling
(co-operative, time-slice, and pre-emptive)?
> (b) it
On 28 March 2006 00:24, Ross Paterson wrote:
> How about STM (minus retry/orElse) and TVars as the portable
> interface? They're trivial for a single-threaded implementation, and
> provide a comfortable interface for everyone.
It just occurred to me that STM isn't completely trivial in a
single-t
On 28 March 2006 00:24, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 09:36:28AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
>> The portable interface could be Control.Concurrent.MVar, perhaps.
>
> As Malcolm pointed out, using MVars requires some care, even if you
> were just aiming to be thread-safe.
I don'
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:24:09AM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> How about STM (minus retry/orElse) and TVars as the portable interface?
> They're trivial for a single-threaded implementation, and provide a
> comfortable interface for everyone.
It may be relevant for this discussion: I believe I r
On 2006-03-28, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/27/06, Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How about STM (minus retry/orElse) and TVars as the portable interface?
>> They're trivial for a single-threaded implementation, and provide a
>> comfortable interface for everyone.
>
> +1 on S
On 3/27/06, Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about STM (minus retry/orElse) and TVars as the portable interface?
> They're trivial for a single-threaded implementation, and provide a
> comfortable interface for everyone.
+1 on STM as the core interface. Why do you suggest omitting re
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 09:36:28AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 26 March 2006 03:44, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > [...] the key point is that
> > a Haskell' module that does not use concurrency, but is thread-safe,
> > ought to work with non-concurrent implementations too.
> >
> > To make that work
On 26 March 2006 02:31, isaac jones wrote:
> Possible Interests:
> 1. I can write tools like filesystems, web servers, and GUIs in
> Haskell'
> 2. Libraries that I use are thread-safe
> 3. I can compile my code with any Haskell' compiler
> 4. Tools such as debuggers and tracers that claim to s
On 26 March 2006 03:44, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 05:31:04PM -0800, isaac jones wrote:
>> I have no idea if it would work, but one solution that Simon didn't
>> mention in his enumeration (below) is that we could find a group of
>> people willing to work hard to implement conc
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 05:31:04PM -0800, isaac jones wrote:
> I have no idea if it would work, but one solution that Simon didn't
> mention in his enumeration (below) is that we could find a group of
> people willing to work hard to implement concurrency in Hugs, for
> example, under Ross's direct
On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 13:17 +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Ross,
>
> Saturday, March 25, 2006, 4:16:01 AM, you wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 02:47:09PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> >> I think it would be a mistake to relegate concurrency to an addendum; it
> >> is a central feature
Hello Ross,
Saturday, March 25, 2006, 4:16:01 AM, you wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 02:47:09PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> I think it would be a mistake to relegate concurrency to an addendum; it
>> is a central feature of the language, and in fact is one area where
>> Haskell (strictly spea
22 matches
Mail list logo
