On 12/14/05, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 13 December 2005 14:52, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
On Dec 13, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
[In response to another plea for TArrays]
In the past I have used arrays of TVars, as Thomasz suggested. It
would indeed be better
On 15 December 2005 13:17, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Anyway, the main gist of my original post was that TArrays should be
in the libraries, so that I can safely use it without having to send
along my own implementation each time (and potentially colliding with
someone else's implementation down
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:17:18PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Wouldn't there be a speedup to do both writes and waiting at the array
level, BUT annotated with an index?
I strongly vote to leave STM as it is, and implement TArray as a
library on top of it. STM implementation is probably
On 12/15/05, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15 December 2005 13:17, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Anyway, the main gist of my original post was that TArrays should be
in the libraries, so that I can safely use it without having to send
along my own implementation each time (and
On 13 December 2005 14:52, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
On Dec 13, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
[In response to another plea for TArrays]
In the past I have used arrays of TVars, as Thomasz suggested. It
would indeed be better to have a primitive STM array, the only
problem with
