Am 25.03.2011 15:40, schrieb dsimcha:
On 3/25/2011 5:42 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 25.03.2011 10:33, schrieb Sönke Ludwig:
yadda-yadda
>
Apart from all this - I just want to make this a known problem, what you
(or maybe Andrei for std.concurrency) decide is up to you and I'm fine
with any outcome for my personal stuff because I do not have such a
complex system apart from work (C++).
You've done a good job of explaining a complex problem. I appreciate it.
I think we should make this a long-term todo, like Michael Fortin's
suggestion that std.concurrency should be able to create tasks or
std.parallelism should handle message passing. You should probably file
a Bugzilla enhancement request saying Phobos should support thread
caching, so that this proposal doesn't get lost.
Your proposal is feasible and solves an important problem. On the other
hand, the design and implementation details are still vague and would
require substantial discussion. The feature is tangential to the purpose
of std.parallelism and clearly crosses the line into general case
concurrency.
Bottom line: This proposal should not hold up the vote and adoption of
std.parallelism, but it should not be discarded permanently either.
Agreed
