10 Jul
2013
10 Jul
'13
4:25 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 02:20:14AM -0700, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
The general feeling Simon and I have is that everyone really wanted to make believe readMVar was atomicReadMVar, and so maybe we should break BC and make readMVar do the right thing.
I don't think this breaks backwards compatibility. The haddocks say: Fairness No thread can be blocked indefinitely on an MVar unless another thread holds that MVar indefinitely. One usual implementation of this fairness guarantee is that threads blocked on an MVar are served in a first-in-first-out fashion, but this is not guaranteed in the semantics. Thanks Ian -- Ian Lynagh, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/