Re: problem with futures?

[Marius Vollmer]

Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:

> For now, I will not work further on that code.  To the Guile
> developers I suggest that you do what you want.  Fix it, or back out
> the future feature entirely.

Hmm.  Semantically, 'begin-thread' and 'thread-join' should be
(nearly?) identical to 'future' and 'future-ref', so we are not losing
critical functionality when removing futures.

However, it would still be good to have some kind of thread pool for
the case where you want to use many short lived threads.

So, I'll remove futures from the API, but leave the code there.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405