At Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Greg Rosenblatt wrote: > Is there a corresponding event for a logical conjunction (I was looking for > something like `all-evt` or `every-evt`), which requires that all of its > members be ready for synchronization at the same time?
No. (Although `replavce-evt` is a weak kind of "and", it's not what you're looking for.) > If not, is there a fundamental barrier to its implementation with the > ConcurrentML approach? Yes, at least in the sense that it's not possible to implement N-way rendezvous given only CML's rendezvous. So, N-way rendezvous would have to be implemented in the core. I'm certain that some languages have implemented that, but I have forgotten the examples. > Related to this, I've been reading "Kill-Safe Synchronization Abstractions" > (https://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/pldi04-ff.pdf), and found it > notable that the swap channel couldn't be implemented in a way that was > both kill-safe and break-safe (not ruining `sync/enable-break`'s > exclusive-or guarantee). I'm wondering if both forms of safety could be > achieved by using a hypothetical `all-evt` that behaves as I've described. Probably so. The citation of [17] in that part of the paper is meant to allude to the CML-style rendezvous versus N-way rendezvous constraint. Matthew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/20210315155008.cc%40sirmail.smtps.cs.utah.edu.
