"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, I just realised a better way to express block. If block is
> supposed to count nesting, then we have a problem that you can still
> unblock exceptions even within a block by using sufficient number of
> unblocks, so the right way is to give block this type:
>
> block :: ((IO b -> IO b) -> IO a) -> IO a
Or perhaps:
block :: ((forall b. IO b -> IO b) -> IO a) -> IO a
It doesn't fit classic mutexes and conditions with my semantics of
implicit blocking, because condition wait should restore the blocking
state to the one before taking the mutex - but the condition wait is
written without explicit passing of any value from the point of taking
the mutex.
I'm not sure how it carries over to Haskell patterns though.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
