Mikael Djurfeldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Would that make sense? > > I don't think so for obvious reasons. It would not make sense to > spawn new pthreads for the kind of usage patterns for which futures > are intended. In my opinion it's better to scrap futures entirely than > to provide the suggested implementation above.
Ok, I see. (I have no intention to remove futures.) I think we need to be more concrete about the pool of threads that futures use. It should be documented and there should be a way to control the number of threads, for example. (I will also try to benchmark them, but there is a bug right now that prevents me from using a huge number of threads... (that bug is not related to futures)) > Note also that futures, by their nature, necessarily needs to be > maintained together with the guile-core rather than being provided > by a separate package. Why is that so? _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
