On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 12:46:53PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 10:00, Luke Palmer wrote: > > Aaron Sherman writes: > > > > Well, more to the point, autothreading of junctions will hit the wall of > > > Parrot duping the interpreter. That's probably not something you want to > > > suffer just to resolve a junction, is it? > > > > What? Why will it do that? > > Why? Well, you can read what Dan wrote, 'cause I'm sure not going to > pretend I'm enough of a threads programmer to have an educated opinion: > > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/perl.perl6.internals/msg/18b86bff49cac5a0?dmode=source > We'd decided that each thread has its own interpreter. Parrot > doesn't get any lighter-weight than an interpreter, since trying > to have multiple threads of control share an interpreter seems > to be a good way to die a horrible death. > -Dan Sugalski / 14 Apr 2005
I believe these are two distinct uses of the term "threading". Autothreading of junctions is orthogonal to parrot interpreter threads. Junction autothreading does *NOT* require interpreter threads. Junction autothreading just means that routines will be executed for each element of the junction (not necessarily in parallel). Someone correct me if I'm wrong. -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
