On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Neil Brown
On 12/01/11 15:53, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
These are interesting, opposed perspectives, and I suspect what would be good is to treat both situations. I think perhaps what would be good to put in the introduction is the conceptual model of MVars: that is, take and put are the fundamental operations, and everything else is composed of them. With additional constraints on who is writing and reading MVars, you can assume more safety properties, but you have to ensure that those are indeed held (or you should use STM instead.)
I'll try another writeup. Does anyone know where the original papers for MVars might be?
I think the original paper is "Concurrent Haskell", available here:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/papers/concurrent-haskell.ps.gz
and here:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/concurrent-hask...
Actually, the first presentation of M-structures is rather older than that. See Barth, Nikhil, and Arvind's FPCA '91 paper: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=652538 The original formulation was indeed in terms of "take" and "put", though unconditional read and write primitives were prtty commonly used in Id programs. The take/put view can also usefully be thought of as a 1-element blocking channel. -Jan-Willem MAessen
Thanks,
Neil.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe