-__-" hehe why did I not let Hayoo or Hoogle help me there *sigh*
Thanks!!
2009/5/31 Sterling Clover
> The proper way is just to wrap System.Timeout, which does some rather
> clever things with regards to exception semantics. The code for it is a joy
> to read, by the way.
>
> --S.
>
>
> On May
The proper way is just to wrap System.Timeout, which does some rather
clever things with regards to exception semantics. The code for it is
a joy to read, by the way.
--S.
On May 30, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Cetin Sert
wrote:
Thank y
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Cetin Sert wrote:
> Thank you for your reply, I'd come up with the following:
>
> timed :: Int → IO a → b → IO (Either b a)
> timed max act def = do
>
> r ← new
>
> t ← forkIO $ do
> a ← act
> r ≔ Right a
>
> s ← forkIO $ do
> wait max
> e ←
Thank you for your reply, I'd come up with the following:
timed :: Int → IO a → b → IO (Either b a)
timed max act def = do
r ← new
t ← forkIO $ do
a ← act
r ≔ Right a
s ← forkIO $ do
wait max
e ← em r
case e of
True → do
kill t
r ≔ Left def
2009/5/30 Cetin Sert
> Hi how could one implement a function in concurrent haskell that either
> returns 'a' successfully or due timeout 'b'?
>
> timed :: Int → IO a → b → IO (Either a b)
> timed max act def = do
>
Something like (warning, untested code - no compiler atm).
timed timeout act fa
Hi how could one implement a function in concurrent haskell that either
returns 'a' successfully or due timeout 'b'?
timed :: Int → IO a → b → IO (Either a b)
timed max act def = do
Best Regards,
Cetin Sert
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@has
