"R. Kent Dybvig" <dyb_at_cs.indiana.edu> writes:
> Now we're down to problematic, but I don't believe even that is true. It
> certainly hasn't been problematic with either Chez Scheme's native threads
> or SWL's continuation-based threads. Furthermore, the mechanisms *are*
> separate---make-parameter and make-thread-parameter create parameters and
> parameterize performs dynamic binding. So I don't even see the basis for
> your claim.
That's a strange way to interpret "separate," since both mechanisms
are joined with parameters. Why aren't dynamic binding and
thread-local storage separate? Our Scheme workshop spells out exactly
what the semantic problems are. (Specifically, they occur when a
escape procedure created in one thread is invoked in another.)
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 04:00:33 UTC