Stefan Edwards scripsit: > I would think that the standard would define something akin to > Bordeaux threads and support some minimal-level of threading across > a wide variety of systems, whilst the language itself would allow > for users to select the best possible threading for themselves via > SRFI-0/7. It could be as simple as falling back to continuation based > threads should the OS/VM target not support threading natively.
Threads, unlike FFI, will be part of R7RS-large. See http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/ThreadsCowan for my current proposal, which closely tracks SRFI 18. It deliberately says nothing about whether the threads are continuation-based, library-based, kernel-based, or even full processes. > A decent FFI would allow the user to work around this. I don't think > having a standard FFI means assuming that there is no difference in > ABI, system calls, &c., but it would mean that if I need to interact > with C on system X, I don't have different syntax from system Y, even > though the way I interact with system X is *completely* different from > system Y (32 vs 64 bit, ropes vs flat strings, ad infinitum). +1 -- I marvel at the creature: so secret and John Cowan so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool [email protected] before our very window. Does he think that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Men sleep without watch all night? _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
