Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > An even more radical idea would be not to have a mutex at all. If > two threads are simultaneously forcing then whichever finishes first > sets the forced value. (The same way that recursive forcing results > in the first finisher setting the value.)
This would only work if you forbid side-effects, right? Either that, or perhaps we'd just have to document the resulting semantics, whatever they are. I was also wondering about the possibilities for deadlock with the current code, and then what they might be with a srfi-45 force, which may do more work (it's basically a trampoline approach to the problem described in the srfi). I suppose one of the questions here (and one of the traditional questions) is just how much protection/overhead Guile should try to provide by default. > (Oh, and to bring this slightly back on-topic, I'm imagining that if > streams or lazy stuff throw off quite a few forced promises then it's > a good thing for them to be small and fast.) Quite possibly. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
