[plt-dev] Parallel Futures Release

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>>> > But I'm not sure why you would need a separate function for
>>> > futures-count, unless you're intending it to be related to question
>>> > (6) below?
>>>
>>> Not really -- I'm just thinking that people would want to know whether
>>> futures are enabled, and `processor-count' is the way to do this now.
>>> So if that always returns the number of cores, it's probably enough to
>>> have a function that returns whether futures are available.
>>
>> This also doesn't make sense to me. When `(processor-count)' produces
>> 1, it doesn't matter whether MzScheme was built with `--enable-futures'
>> or not; the resulting lack of performance improvement is the same
>> either way.
>
> Well, someone might build a OS-processlevel thingy that depends on
> this, and it might be useful for places, too.
>
> (but I agree with your larger point)

I would use it to replace a constant in DrDr.

Jay

>
> Robby
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
>



-- 
Jay McCarthy <jay at cs.byu.edu>
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
http://teammccarthy.org/jay

"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93