At Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Greg Rosenblatt wrote: > Is there a corresponding event for a logical conjunction (I was looking for > something like `all-evt` or `every-evt`), which requires that all of its > members be ready for synchronization at the same time?
No. (Although `replavce-evt` is a weak kind of "and", it's not what you're looking for.) > If not, is there a fundamental barrier to its implementation with the > ConcurrentML approach? Yes, at least in the sense that it's not possible to implement N-way rendezvous given only CML's rendezvous. So, N-way rendezvous would have to be implemented in the core. I'm certain that some languages have implemented that, but I have forgotten the examples. > Related to this, I've been reading "Kill-Safe Synchronization Abstractions" > (https://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/pldi04-ff.pdf), and found it > notable that the swap channel couldn't be implemented in a way that was > both kill-safe and break-safe (not ruining `sync/enable-break`'s > exclusive-or guarantee). I'm wondering if both forms of safety could be > achieved by using a hypothetical `all-evt` that behaves as I've described. Probably so. The citation of [17] in that part of the paper is meant to allude to the CML-style rendezvous versus N-way rendezvous constraint. Matthew -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/20210315155008.cc%40sirmail.smtps.cs.utah.edu.
