On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:56:41AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Fair enough - I take that as a vote for a concurrency addendum.
Actually, I think there is a lot we can standardize in a portable way when it comes to concurrency without compromising the ability for any compiler to implement it and I think it would be very worthwhile to do so. in the report proper.
I think it's a bit unfair to talk about "GHC-style concurrency". There are many different ways to implement exactly what GHC currently provides. In fact, we were very careful when designing it to ensure that this was the case:
yeah, when I say GHC style concurrency, I mean the interface that ghc has. forkIO,MVar, etc... as opposed to event-loop, O'Haskell, expliticly scheduled, manual continuations, etc.. but I have been clumsy about whether I mean cooperative or fully-preemptive by GHC-style. I'll try to make that clear. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈