From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CAB5D45F for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:53:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from karpinski.uscs.susx.ac.uk (karpinski.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.85]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jA2Eruwe026750 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:53:56 +0100 Received: from calaf.rn.informatics.scitech.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.48.199]:50136) by karpinski.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id IPC1EV-000KRL-FA for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:54:31 +0000 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The best way to circumvent the lack of Thread.kill ? From: David Teller Reply-To: David.Teller@ens-lyon.org To: OCaml In-Reply-To: <43688C4C.2080606@inria.fr> References: <43688C4C.2080606@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:53:46 +0000 Message-Id: <1130943226.4565.11.camel@calaf.rn.informatics.scitech.susx.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-22) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4368D304.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ens-lyon:01 threads:01 cheers:01 wrote:01 exception:01 exception:01 thread:02 thread:02 implemented:02 channel:06 channel:06 encountered:06 wed:07 2005:91 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 I would have figured that the best way to properly kill a thread would be to have some form of channel (i.e. Events.t)-based communication between threads -- and then killing the channel. Trouble is that, as I've just realized, there is no such facility as killing/sending an exception through a channel. Does anyone know why ? Cheers, David On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:52 +0100, Julien Narboux wrote: > Hi, > > I just encountered the Thread.kill "not implemented" exception.