On Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
This seems fine to me. It's based on something that already does work properly across a process scope,
But you agree that IORefs define a concept of "process scope"?
I'm not sure that they *define* process scope, because it might be safe to use them across multiple processes; it depends on OS-dependent properties. But they exist *at least* at process scope.
instead of some new language feature that is actually hard to implement across the process scope.
If we have a concept of "process scope", how is it hard to implement?
Because memory allocation is already implemented, and not in a Haskell-dependent way. If two completely separate Haskell libraries are present in the same process, linked together by a C program, they don't even know about each others existence. But they still don't share memory space. Ganesh