[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the state of the concurrency branch
From: |
Barry OReilly |
Subject: |
Re: the state of the concurrency branch |
Date: |
Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:29:38 -0400 |
> Can you check it in?
Done.
> If there are multiple threads, the sleep may switch threads and
> cause the timer to run in a different dynamic environment.
It's a good point, though I think such code sounds dodgy.
Theoretically, it's already true on trunk that timers can run with
different dynamic bindings each time it runs. sit-for is called from
various places, timers can run within timers, and all can dynamically
bind variables.
If timers changed to each run in their own thread, dynamic bindings
would be easier to reason about. I don't know if that should happen
before or after merging to trunk (or not at all).
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Barry OReilly, 2013/10/16
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Barry OReilly, 2013/10/16
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/10/17
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/10/17
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/18
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/10/18
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Richard Stallman, 2013/10/19
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch,
Barry OReilly <=
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/19
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Barry OReilly, 2013/10/19
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/10/21
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Barry OReilly, 2013/10/21
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/21
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/21
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Barry OReilly, 2013/10/19