Concurrency Proposal

[Brian Rice]

Sure, I'm aware of this research and its soundness - I read  
everything that passes through LtU that I can.

However, someone else is going to have to focus on it, not me, just  
as with the attempt at parser combinators in src/unfinished/ 
parsec.slate.

On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Matt Revelle wrote:

> Should transactional memory be thought of at this point?
>
> For any interested, here are some links:
> http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/stm/index.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_memory
>
> On 3/9/06, Brian Rice <water at tunes.org> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> I don't have much to directly comment on except that it'd be a
>> benefit to get some discussion on the technical points so that we
>> wind up with a good initial design and don't "code ourselves into a
>> corner"; concurrent programming support can be a tricky issue in that
>> it pervades assumptions about code and what it can do.
>
> <snip>

--
-Brian
http://tunes.org/~water/brice.vcf

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : /archives/slate/attachments/20060309/9e60b1c4/PGP.pgp