important news: refocusing discussion
ross at soi.city.ac.uk
Sat Mar 25 21:44:03 EST 2006
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 05:31:04PM -0800, isaac jones wrote:
> I have no idea if it would work, but one solution that Simon didn't
> mention in his enumeration (below) is that we could find a group of
> people willing to work hard to implement concurrency in Hugs, for
> example, under Ross's direction.
I'm no expert on Hugs internals, and certainly not qualified to direct
such an effort, but I don't have great hopes for it. Apart from the
fact that Hugs is written in a legacy language and uses a quite a bit
of global state, it also makes heavy use of the C stack, and any
implementation that does that will have trouble, I think.
I think it's clear that the proposed concurrency model is feasible for
some implementations but not for others.
I've been assuming that Haskell' was intended to encompass a wide range
of implementations. If that's the case, the key point is that a Haskell'
module that does not use concurrency, but is thread-safe, ought to work
with non-concurrent implementations too.
To make that work, we'd need two interfaces:
* one for applications that make use of concurrency. This would be
unavailable on some implementations.
* one for thread-safe use of state. This would be available on all
implementations, and authors not requiring concurrency would be
encouraged to use it for maximum portability.
More information about the Haskell-prime