Xavier Leroy wrote:

> Being able to terminate any thread at any time, without cooperation
> from the thread, is extremely dangerous: what if the killed thread was
> holding mutexes?  (I think this has been discussed recently on this

What if I know he doesn't :) ? But I understand this is bad engineering
practice (tough the program I wrote is 200 lines long ...).

> slightly less risky, but doesn't (currently) map well to Caml threads.

Does a standard mecanism has to ? I would be perfectly happy
with anything enabling asynchorous communication (either
sending signals, or sending exceptions, or even sending 1 kind of
message).

> So: don't kill threads.  Let them live a long and happy life :-)

How can they be happy if they have to check periodically if
they have to hara-kiri for the honor of computing ressource ? :)


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners