Re: About 'futures'

[Marius Vollmer]

Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:

>> Would that make sense?
>
> I don't think so for obvious reasons.  It would not make sense to
> spawn new pthreads for the kind of usage patterns for which futures
> are intended. In my opinion it's better to scrap futures entirely than
> to provide the suggested implementation above.

Ok, I see.  (I have no intention to remove futures.)

I think we need to be more concrete about the pool of threads that
futures use.  It should be documented and there should be a way to
control the number of threads, for example.

(I will also try to benchmark them, but there is a bug right now that
prevents me from using a huge number of threads... (that bug is not
related to futures))

> Note also that futures, by their nature, necessarily needs to be
> maintained together with the guile-core rather than being provided
> by a separate package.

Why is that so?