From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <goswin-v-b@web.de>
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F340BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:02:39 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aq4CAJZ2P0zZSMDjkWdsb2JhbACfaxUBAQEBCQsKBxEDH758hSQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,212,1278280800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="55628682"
Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de ([217.72.192.227])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2010 06:02:39 +0200
Received:  from smtp07.web.de  ( [172.20.5.215])
	by fmmailgate02.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6753E16BFA169;
	Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:02:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [78.43.204.177] (helo=frosties.localdomain)
	by smtp07.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(WEB.DE 4.110 #4)
	id 1OZc7l-00040R-00; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:02:09 +0200
Received: from mrvn by frosties.localdomain with local (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <goswin-v-b@web.de>)
	id 1OZc7e-0007tI-R1; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:02:02 +0200
From: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>
To: Rich Neswold <rich.neswold@gmail.com>
Cc: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>,
	caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Smart ways to implement worker threads
References: <87sk3mcaeq.fsf@frosties.localdomain>
	<AANLkTilJUmUCQx2DiomhBNZdWEUinjnLeu2rFMMwcZ02@mail.gmail.com>
	<87zkxsfvsg.fsf@frosties.localdomain>
	<AANLkTik3C58pheUssb8LDtvj3gkcA3qoKT0YsaQ65B6N@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:02:02 +0200
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik3C58pheUssb8LDtvj3gkcA3qoKT0YsaQ65B6N@mail.gmail.com>
	(Rich Neswold's message of "Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:56:21 -0500")
Message-ID: <87hbk0vzut.fsf@frosties.localdomain>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) XEmacs/21.4.22 (linux, no MULE)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: goswin-v-b@web.de
X-Sender: goswin-v-b@web.de
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+3cmIqi7uKhJfe+fFsfuzMeJfwIeNaAJwFSNZz
	/ksrFc5ZXhxkmc9HzJ5LPxFq82WpM2564uzpku60k5nhjPWm7z
	YeOxaHnwA=
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 ocaml's:01 syntax:01 mfg:98 threads:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 differs:01 short:01 writes:01 translate:04 jul:05 thu:05 throws:05 

Rich Neswold <rich.neswold@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>
> wrote:
>
>     It is too bad I don't want to learn CML but use Ocaml. The CML examples
>     from the book don't translate into ocaml since the interface is just a
>     little bit different and those differences are what throws me off.
>
>  
>
>     So could you give a short example? E.g. the merge sort from the book.
>
>
> You're right: OCaml's syntax differs enough from the text that it's annoying to
> cut-n-paste the examples. Fortunately most example are a few lines of code, so
> I didn't realize how difficult it could be on a larger example (like the merge
> sort example.)
>
> Attached is my translation of the mergeSort from the book. You get to play with
> it and see if it works  :)

Thanks. That is about what I got so I do seem to understand the
differences right.

For my use case this would then come down to implement solution 3 with
channels instead of my own queues. Well, channels are thread safe queues
just by another name. I think I see now how they make the code simpler
to write.

MfG
        Goswin