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 FAA25502; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:38:18 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA24346 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:38:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.198]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6V3cFEV027696 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:38:16 +0200 Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 77so11141rnl for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.78.51 with SMTP id a51mr44220rnb; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:38:15 -0700 From: "Corey O'Connor" To: Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] looping recursion In-Reply-To: <41097D53.5050607@baretta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable References: <16646.64470.304530.264731@soggy.deldotd.com> <16647.5177.849829.421587@soggy.deldotd.com> <4107544C.4040502@baretta.com> <410898F0.6030804@baretta.com> <41097D53.5050607@baretta.com> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 410B1427.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; corey:99 caml-list:01 recursion:01 threads:01 pushes:01 2004:99 baretta:01 baretta:01 mandated:99 deques:01 okasaki:01 bug:01 faq:01 faq:01 beginner's:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Is the connection due to persistance?=20 So given a data structure is persistant across operations, let's say a stack. Suppose if two threads are working with the same instance of a data structure. One thread pushes a value onto the stack, the other does not. Due to persistance the other thread's instance of the stack is unaffected? -Corey On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:42:27 +0200, Alex Baretta wrote: >=20 > I didn't understand the connection between multithreading and > persistence, but it's probably too late and I've been working far too > much to follow you entirely. Let me just give you a couple eurocents of > industrial experience: side-effects are utterly bad. My Xcaml > application server was designed two years ago with one major flaw: one > global state variable. I'm still fighting with the execution engine to > take it away, but that won't happen before a major rewrite. I won't by > imperative programming for anything at all. And, yes, in my company the > mandated standard for deques is batched queues =E0 la Okasaki. >=20 > Alex >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------- > To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inr= ia.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 >=20 --=20 -Corey O'Connor ------------------- 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