From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Recursive mutexes? Date: 26 Oct 2002 16:26:47 -0700 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <8765vook7c.fsf@becket.becket.net> References: <87r8edos41.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87hef86e3d.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <200210262242.PAA26787@morrowfield.regexps.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035674805 4891 80.91.224.249 (26 Oct 2002 23:26:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:26:45 +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 185aKJ-0001Gl-00 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 01:26:43 +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 185aJj-0003Ay-00; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:26:07 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 185aJ1-0001aX-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:25:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 185aJ0-0001Zt-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:25:23 -0400 Original-Received: from vp190174.reshsg.uci.edu ([128.195.190.174] helo=becket.becket.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 185aIn-0001Ns-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:25:09 -0400 Original-Received: from tb by becket.becket.net with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 185aKN-0000Ri-00; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:26:47 -0700 Original-To: Tom Lord X-Reply-Permission: Posted or emailed replies to this message constitute permission for an emailed response. X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1F0A1E51 63 28 EB DA E6 44 E5 5E EC F3 04 26 4E BF 1A 92 X-Zippy-Says: OKAY!! Turn on the sound ONLY for TRYNEL CARPETING, FULLY-EQUIPPED R.V.'S and FLOATATION SYSTEMS!! In-Reply-To: <200210262242.PAA26787@morrowfield.regexps.com> Original-Lines: 17 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 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:1611 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1611 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. > 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? _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel