Daan I think everyone is keen to make progress on this bound-threads stuff. You have an alternative idea which we are trying to understand. Do you plan to have a go at the operational semantics, as a way of explaining it? At the moment we're a bit stuck: no one wants to move on before we have some kind of consensus, but you're the only one who can help us understand your proposal.
Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Simon Peyton-Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: 17 March 2003 22:06 | To: Daan Leijen; Wolfgang Thaller; [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: Bound Threads | | | | | Maybe, the forkOS/forkIO approach is flawed, but I think we | | should only rule it out when we can provide a convincing | | example where only the keyword approach would work, and where | | we can't use combinators to achieve the same effect. | | | Daan, | | There has been extended discussion on this stuff, which Wolfgang and | Simon and I tried to boil out into a document. It's hard to say exactly | what 'safe' or 'bound' exports, or whatever, might mean, so we give a | little operational semantics. | | My hope is that the very same operational-semantic framework would serve | to describe your system. Would you like to write its transition rules, | in the same style? Then we could compare the two more easily. Without | that, I am hard pressed to understand the implications of what you | suggest, just as I was hard pressed to understand Wolfgang's proposal | till we had it specified. | | You can find the document in the CVS respository in | haskell-report/ffi/threads.tex | | Simon _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
