John Meacham: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:56:41AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > > Fair enough - I take that as a vote for a concurrency addendum. > > Actually, I think there is a lot we can standardize in a portable way > when it comes to concurrency without compromising the ability for any > compiler to implement it and I think it would be very worthwhile to do > so. in the report proper. > > > > > I think it's a bit unfair to talk about "GHC-style concurrency". There > > are many different ways to implement exactly what GHC currently > > provides. In fact, we were very careful when designing it to ensure > > that this was the case: > > yeah, when I say GHC style concurrency, I mean the interface that ghc > has. forkIO,MVar, etc... as opposed to event-loop, O'Haskell, expliticly > scheduled, manual continuations, etc..
As I see it, it's really only GHC's API which is up for discussion for inclusion in Haskell', as we we decided that we largely want to go with already implemented and tested approaches. Manuel _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
