<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:50 AM, roger peppe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rogpeppe@gmail.com">rogpeppe@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Ryan Ingram <<a href="mailto:ryani.spam@gmail.com">ryani.spam@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I don't think what you want is possible if both sides are in STM.<br>
> Other authors have posted solutions where one side or the other of the<br>
> transaction is in I/O, but wholly inside STM it's not possible.<br>
<br>
</div>Thanks, that's what I thought, although I wasn't sure of it, being<br>
new to both Haskell and STM.<br>
<br>
Presumably this result means that it's not possible to implement<br>
any bounded-buffer-type interface within (rather than on top of) STM.<br>
<br>
Isn't that a rather serious restriction?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't know that it's practically-speaking that serious. One can write it in IO, using STM. I think of CSP as I/O anyway, but perhaps my thinking is flawed and dirty from MPI and Erlang "message passing" :-).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Then again, I'm not sure why keeping it in STM is even valuable really. IO gets the job done right?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
cheers,<br>
rog.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>