On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is quite a neat generalisation of forkIO, and something I've wanted in
> the past.
>
> My comment would be about the MonadIO m requirement for ForkableMonad. I
> understand that conceptually it's a nice thing to have. But practica
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Limestraël wrote:
> Nice initiative!
Thanks!
> By the way, since this is a monad, I think a better place than
> Control.Concurrent.Forkable would be Control.Monad.Forkable.
> It's just a suggestion.
I'm not entirely happy with the location with the module, but w
Hi,
This is quite a neat generalisation of forkIO, and something I've wanted
in the past.
My comment would be about the MonadIO m requirement for ForkableMonad.
I understand that conceptually it's a nice thing to have. But
practically, I don't think it's necessary, and could be a little
r
Nice initiative!
By the way, since this is a monad, I think a better place than
Control.Concurrent.Forkable would be Control.Monad.Forkable.
It's just a suggestion.
> 2010/4/21 David Anderson
>
> Dear Haskellers,
>>
>> I'm happy, and only slightly intimidated, to announce the initial
>> releas
Dear Haskellers,
I'm happy, and only slightly intimidated, to announce the initial
release of forkable-monad.
The short version is that forkable-monad exports a replacement forkIO
that lets you do this:
type MyMonad = ReaderT Config (StateT Ctx IO)
startThread :: MyMonad ThreadId
startThread =
