On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:21:19 +0200 Lionel Cons wrote:
> On 13 September 2012 17:16, Glenn Fowler <g...@research.att.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:31:07 +0200 Cedric Blancher wrote:
> >> Glenn, when is the next alpha/beta due? Is there a roadmap what you
> >> are planning long-term for AST?
> >
> > here is a short overview of long-term ast plans
> > its all subject to change depending on how the research/testing goes
> > we're sensitive to making as much as possible opt-in
> > so that ast code will play nice with other 3rd party code
> >
> > tsast -- thread safe ast
> >
> > * the plans are far-reaching so for this once we are not focusing on
> > binary compatibility
> > * the tsast code branch is separate from current { official beta alpha }
> > packages
> > * current work is limited to libast
> > * the research model is to design the high level api, code the complete
> > <header.h>, stub() in the calls, and get a clean compile, and the fill
> > in the stubs() with working code
> > * currently libast is not even compiling yet
> > * based on past experience it will take a good part of autumn until we
> > get to tsast/ksh -c 'print "hello world"'
> >
> > * change all apis to support threads
> > * eliminate as many globals as possible
> > * handle=fooopen(), foouse(handle), fooclose(handle)
> > * __thread-ize the remaining globals
> I hope the madness of trying to add a thread global current working
> directory is off the table, right? I've brought that up with my own
> staff in a meeting, earning me horrified faces and a stern education
> why this is a bad idea.
not global
opt-in for ast only
_______________________________________________
ast-developers mailing list
ast-developers@research.att.com
https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
