simonpj at microsoft.com
Fri Mar 21 05:28:50 EST 2003
I think everyone is keen to make progress on this bound-threads stuff.
You have an alternative idea which we are trying to understand. Do you
plan to have a go at the operational semantics, as a way of explaining
it? At the moment we're a bit stuck: no one wants to move on before we
have some kind of consensus, but you're the only one who can help us
understand your proposal.
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Simon Peyton-Jones [mailto:simonpj at microsoft.com]
| Sent: 17 March 2003 22:06
| To: Daan Leijen; Wolfgang Thaller; ffi at haskell.org
| Subject: RE: Bound Threads
| | Maybe, the forkOS/forkIO approach is flawed, but I think we
| | should only rule it out when we can provide a convincing
| | example where only the keyword approach would work, and where
| | we can't use combinators to achieve the same effect.
| There has been extended discussion on this stuff, which Wolfgang and
| Simon and I tried to boil out into a document. It's hard to say
| what 'safe' or 'bound' exports, or whatever, might mean, so we give a
| little operational semantics.
| My hope is that the very same operational-semantic framework would
| to describe your system. Would you like to write its transition rules,
| in the same style? Then we could compare the two more easily.
| that, I am hard pressed to understand the implications of what you
| suggest, just as I was hard pressed to understand Wolfgang's proposal
| till we had it specified.
| You can find the document in the CVS respository in
More information about the FFI