Racket documentation doesn't tell much on the subject. The only two things I've found are *box-cas! *and this passage from Evaluation Model that to me remains a bit cryptic.
Threads are created explicitly by functions such as thread > <file:///Applications/Racket%20v6.90.0.901/doc/reference/threads.html?q=thread%20safe#%28def._%28%28quote._~23~25kernel%29._thread%29%29>. > > In terms of the evaluation model, each step in evaluation actually consists > of multiple concurrent expressions, up to one per thread, rather than a > single expression. The expressions all share the same objects and top-level > variables, so that they can communicate through shared state, and > sequential consistency is guaranteed (i.e., the result is consistent with > some global sequence imposed on all evaluation steps across threads). Most > evaluation steps involve a single step in a single expression, but certain > synchronization primitives require multiple threads to progress together in > one step. Could someone illuminate how I should be thinking about mutation in presence of multiple green threads? E.g. mutate shared mutable hash-table, mutate mutable hash-table held in in a struct field? Basically, I'm trying to decide when to reach for mailboxes and other synchronization primitives. If I'm ok with "eventually" other threads will see that value, should I think hard about mutating things? What's comparable to Clojure atoms? Would it be boxes + box-cas!? Thanks -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
