From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tom Lord Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Recursive mutexes? Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200210262335.QAA26980@morrowfield.regexps.com> References: <87r8edos41.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87hef86e3d.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <200210262242.PAA26787@morrowfield.regexps.com> <8765vook7c.fsf@becket.becket.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035675108 5473 80.91.224.249 (26 Oct 2002 23:31:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rlb@defaultvalue.org, mvo@zagadka.ping.de, guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 185aPC-0001Q9-00 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 01:31:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 185aOh-0007UW-00; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:31:15 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 185aOM-0006cH-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:30:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 185aOK-0006bj-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:30:54 -0400 Original-Received: from 1cust132.tnt13.sfo8.da.uu.net ([63.10.241.132] helo=morrowfield.regexps.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 185aOJ-0006Y9-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:30:52 -0400 Original-Received: (from lord@localhost) by morrowfield.regexps.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA26980; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:35:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lord@morrowfield.regexps.com) Original-To: tb@becket.net In-reply-to: <8765vook7c.fsf@becket.becket.net> (tb@becket.net) Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1612 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1612 Tom Lord writes: > In my "dream scheme" system, I'm thinking they aren't worth the > effort. They slow down access to the store and complicate > programming. I don't even want to think about how to reconcile them > with continuations, dynamic-wind, or fluids. It seems to me that we should not decide that a problem is too hard to solve well before trying. Trying or thinking through, sure. I just wanted to put the alternative on the table -- not discourage careful consideration of all alternatives. > I do want multiple interpreters (without a shared store) in separate > threads. I do want low-level routines running in separate threads > (e.g., give a CPU to I/O or to reving cellular automata generations). > But I'm having trouble seeing Scheme semantics as other than "optimal > for SISD". How will these different interpreters share data? Dunno. Lots of options exist. Here's a few: 1) through optimizedj intra-process I/O 2) through segregated data structures that can be passed back and forth between threads (a high-level "segmented" store). 3) through a subset of values that _are_ shared. 3a) through java objects 3b) through objects of types defined by extensions to guile -t _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel