Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
CML Discussion (was: Smart ways to implement worker threads)
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Rich Neswold <rich.neswold@g...>
Subject: CML Discussion (was: Smart ways to implement worker threads)
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:19 AM, David McClain <
dbm@refined-audiometrics.com> wrote:

> That is not the same as OCaml's architecture, and so OCaml can implement
> about 90% of CML but that last 10% might kill your dreams. CML likes to
> spawn potential handlers, of which only one will get the go ahead. The
> others are expected to die, after possibly cleaning up state.
>

So which 10% of the Event module is poorly implemented? Or is it that the
Event module doesn't have a spawn function and relies on the Thread module?
Is it fixable (could a CML module be created for OCaml that faithfully
implements the run-time described in Reppy's book)?

I thought I read some details, recently, which described CML threads
implemented as continuations rather than system threads, which made them
inexpensive (relative to OS threads) to create. I'll have to go through my
blog lists to see where I read that.

Thanks for your insights!

-- 
Rich

Google Reader: https://www.google.com/reader/shared/rich.neswold
Jabber ID: rich@neswold.homeunix.net