At Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:46:06 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > I just meant that > > (sync (future (lambda () ...))) > > should be the same as > > (touch (future (lambda () ...))) > > or is that hard for future-safety reasons as well?
I'm not convinced that it makes sense. When you create a future, there's no guarantee that the future's thunk will run concurrently with the main computation (i.e., a future may provide parallelism, but it's not intended for concurrency). So, if you simply `sync' on the future's completion, it won't necessarily ever complete, because no one is necessarily demanding the result. You can put concurrency and parallelism together like this, I suppose: (sync (thread (lambda () (touch (future ...))))) In that case, there's a clear demand for a future's result, a sensible synchronization between concurrent tasks, and an opportunity for parallelism. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
