Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of Mon Sep 13 05:10:13 -0400 2010: > The idea of having user-definable cancellation mechanisms seems quite > sensible, given that we have so many ways to do this. However it seems > quite hard in practice: for pthread_cancel, the RTS has to behave quite > differently from pthread_kill. The API for defining the cancellation > mechanism could get quite complicated. > > For now I would go with 'interruptible' (meaning either pthread_kill() > or CancelSynchronousIO()). It's not nearly as dangerous as > pthread_cancel(), but it covers a lot of the cases we're interested in, > and it doesn't have problems with bound threads.
Sounds good. I'll roll this change tomorrow. Maybe we should emit a warning pre-Vista that "interruptible" is not being honored? Also, it occurs to me that a lot of this functionality could be implemented in user space. Cheers, Edward _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
