Thanks, Luke. I'd been unconsciously assuming that the IVar would get
written to (if ever) by a thread other than the one doing the reading.
(Even then, there could be a deadlock.)
- Conal
On Dec 9, 2007 9:37 AM, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 9, 2007 5:09 PM, Conal Elliott
I would claim that it's fine to use the type
readIVar :: IVar a - a
if you're willing to give the right semantics to
newIVar :: IO (IVar a)
The semantics is that sometimes when you create an IVar you'll get one that
always returns _|_ when read, sometimes you'll get a proper one. Now if you
Hi Conal,
On Dec 9, 2007 6:09 PM, Conal Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
readIVar' :: IVar a - a
readIVar' = unsafePerformIO . readIVar
so, we do not need readIVar'. it could be a nice addition to the
libraries, maybe as unsafeReadIVar or unsafeReadMVar.
The same argument applies any to
Thanks. I don't know for what uses of IVars the difference in
expressiveness is helpful, but now I get that the difference is there.
Cheers, - Conal
On Dec 9, 2007 2:08 PM, Benja Fallenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi Conal,
On Dec 9, 2007 6:09 PM, Conal Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
