On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 12:17:36AM -0000, Claus Reinke wrote:
ps does your later email imply that you suggest IORef/MVar as the non-volatile/volative separation? i'd rather see non-thread- local IORefs phased out of ch..
yeah. exactly. thread local storage is also quite expensive though so making all IORefs them would be a waste 90% of the time (as would making them threadsafe). I propose IORefs make no guarentees when it comes to concurrency, it is the users burden to make sure they use them in a single threaded manner. MVars should make guarentees when it comes to concurrency, and you should use those whenever they might be accesed by different threads.. The reason all implementations should provide MVars (even if they are just wrappers around IORefs) is so people can write portable threadsafe libraries. mostly they can use IORefs, but should use MVars for things like the unsafePerformIO global variable trick. a thread-local version of MVars might also be interesting... John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈