-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 172
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refer to 'a Lwt.t as promises rather than threads (proposal) #300
Comments
aantron
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 20, 2016
The manual and API docs are still using "thread," this will be changed in the new manual (coming "soon"). Related #300. [skip ci]
aantron
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 20, 2016
The manual and API docs are still using "thread," this will be changed in the new manual (coming "soon"). Related #300. [skip ci]
aantron
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 20, 2016
The manual and API docs are still using "thread," this will be changed in the new manual (coming "soon"). Related #300. [skip ci]
aantron
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 20, 2016
The manual and API docs are still using "thread," this will be changed in the new manual (coming "soon"). Related #300. [skip ci]
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Calling
'a Lwt.t
s threads causes a lot of confusion for beginners, who mistake Lwt threads for system threads, or at least expect aspects of system thread behavior. Many examples can be cited.I think we should just use the common terminology of the day, and call Lwt a (monadic) promise library. We should completely eliminate all mention of threads outside of
Lwt_preemptive
or discussion of internals ofLwt_unix
.I would mind this when fixing/rewriting the docs.
Opinions welcome.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: