Re: [tlug] STM (was: Re: work times & accommodation @tokyo)

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

I pass on the following URL without comment.  Look at the thread "GHC
and Darcs".

http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2008-July/thread.html

Curt Sampson writes:
 > On 2008-07-31 13:50 +0900 (Thu), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > 
 > > Curt Sampson writes:
 > > 
 > >  > It's easy to reconstruct monadic behaviour in either language. It's just
 > >  > very difficult or impossible to type check it.
 > > 
 > > Well, what I had in mind basically was creating closures as a type,
 > > then "atomically" would be a type containing a list of closures.  The
 > > calling syntax would be something like
 > > 
 > >     Atomically(list_of_closures).exec()
 > 
 > No, this doesn't appear to do it. Read section 3.2 of the Beautiful
 > Concurrency paper carefully and note what's going on.

I did.  (BTW, the Beautiful Code version doesn't have section
numbers.)

 > Now how, in the system above, do you prevent Java code, inside or
 > outside your list of closures, from manipulating the TVars themselves,
 > rather than having only atomically able to execute these actions?

Obviously the relevant data and methods would be members with package
access (sort of like a friend in C++).  Or anyway it's obvious now
that I've refreshed my knowledge of Java somewhat. ;-)