From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id NAA22436; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:16:45 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA22472 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:16:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.254]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9DBGi522334 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:16:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.79) by mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3DA24CF600351067 for caml-list@inria.fr; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:16:44 +0200 Received: from iliana (80.14.240.235) by mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3DA24B4A0032C4B4 for caml-list@inria.fr; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:16:44 +0200 Received: from luther by iliana with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 180gtE-0000yJ-00 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:26:32 +0200 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:26:32 +0200 To: Inria Ocaml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Native Threads Message-ID: <20021013112632.GA3729@iliana> References: <3DA01AAF.14FD242C@noos.fr> <20021013104353.G13771@pauillac.inria.fr> <20021013090448.GA1277@iliana> <20021013104222.GB2343@cs.unibo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021013104222.GB2343@cs.unibo.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Sven LUTHER Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 12:42:22PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 11:04:48AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: > > > The documentation should definitely be updated to mention that > > > Thread.kill is not only unavailable with system threads, but also > > > deprecated and definitely not advised. > > > > Why not remove it entirelly ? > > Backward compatibility, IMO we can't just remove a function from the > standard library, this has to be done in two steps: No, I don't think this is a problem here, since the function is _not_ working on the majority of implementations out there anyway. Maintaining backward compatibility is just maintaining backward brokeness, which we can live with well enough. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners