On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 13:47 +, John Goerzen wrote:
On 2005-07-25, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 23 July 2005 03:38, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Thanks for describing the problem in detail, I understand it better now.
I think it comes down to this conflict:
- you want to take
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 04:05:15PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 13:47 +, John Goerzen wrote:
- our bound threads design does not require the implementation
to support lightweight threads, and hence doesn't let the
programmer take advantage of them.
In
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 10:08 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 04:05:15PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 13:47 +, John Goerzen wrote:
- our bound threads design does not require the implementation
to support lightweight threads, and hence
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:07:15AM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Simon,
Thursday, July 21, 2005, 1:16:10 AM, you wrote:
SM from a single thread.
you can either:
1) made all calls from single thread
2) put all calls in withMVar lock, where `lock` is a global MVar
OK, that makes
On 7/21/05, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:07:15AM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Simon,
Thursday, July 21, 2005, 1:16:10 AM, you wrote:
SM from a single thread.
you can either:
1) made all calls from single thread
2) put all calls in
