Proposal: add forkOnIO and friends to Control.Concurrent:

[Brandon S Allbery KF8NH]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 1/1/11 20:21 , Maciej Piechotka wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 13:59 -0500, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>> On 12/23/10 20:57 , Thomas Schilling wrote:
>>> I also find the name 'forkOnIO' extremely confusing.  Without reading
>>> the docs it seems to imply that a thread is created on IO, i.e., if
>>> I/O happens.  This makes no sense, and is of course not what's
>>> happening.  However, I assume you chose it because forkIOOn looks a
>>> bit weird.  In that case, why not use forkThreadOn, and in a separate
>>> proposal change forkIO to forkThread (or just fork).
>>
>> +1
>> The name "forkIO" always seemed a bit odd to me; aren't threads pretty much
>> constrained to IO anyway?
> 
> Depends on what you understand by thread:

Implicit threading in the runtime doesn't actually count, no; if that isn't
referentially transparent then by definition it is broken.

- -- 
brandon s. allbery     [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl]      allbery at kf8nh.com
system administrator  [openafs,heimdal,too many hats]  allbery at ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university      KF8NH
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk0f1T0ACgkQIn7hlCsL25UhNQCfXLH8xJp20yA0YAxOCHmJ67Yw
aMUAmwXm6NVdDT1Gme8Tpjb0LQy7qyxI
=nkmG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----