[Haskell-cafe] Re: Can you do everything without shared-memory concurrency?

[Sebastian Sylvan]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Bruce Eckel <bruceteckel at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, let me throw another idea out here. When Allen Holub first
> explained Actors to me, he made the statement that Actors prevent
> deadlocks. In my subsequent understanding of them, I haven't seen
> anything that would disagree with that -- as long as you only use
> Actors and nothing else for parallelism.


I think you need to specify what you mean by actors, because I can't see how
they would eliminate deadlocks as I understand them. Could you not write an
actor that holds a single cell mailbox (both reads and writes are blocking),
then set up two classes that shuffles values from the same two mailboxes in
the opposite direction?

-- 
Sebastian Sylvan
+44(0)7857-300802
UIN: 44640862
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20080912/8442702c/attachment.htm