On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 02:05:13PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Dustin Laurence wrote: > >I'm pretty sure this is stepping into deep quicksand > > No, just hard work. It is only quicksand, if you start, but never > finish.
It's quicksand if it turns out to vastly exceed the time allotted. Especially if the estimated time to completion not only increases as time goes on but diverges. :-) > The mechanism I might favor would be to handle all the fun inside the > language front end.... > this saves you from having to fight against them, but it does have > limitations (no full and complete interoperability with C). Interoperability is good, but you have a point. > If every language were going to have the feature, then, moving it > down into the mid-end or back-end might make sense, but I don't think > it does in this case. Personally, I'd like, and use, decent coroutines in C. But perhaps I am the only one. > I wouldn't start with pthreads I don't think. That was my thought--I played with it some but I intended it as a bit of threads practice. Using threads to emulate a synchronous construct just seems *wrong.* Dustin
pgpWS1UE2GMgg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
