From: Steve Gunnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:45:24 +0800
On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 11:05 -0500, Bob Rogers wrote:
> From: Steve Gunnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 15:02:37 +0800
>
> . . .
>
> It also seems to me that with coroutines and threads you might have
> diverging contexts with different active exceptions and actions.
>
> I am assuming the ithreads model, where there is no sharing of contexts
> between threads. I believe that is how threads are currently
> implemented in Parrot . . .
Well I haven't looked at the code but I was thinking along the lines
that Threads and Coroutines inherit their current context from
somewhere ... So which bits can they safely inherit and which bits must
be masked?
The dynamic context is defined solely by the control stack, which is
intimately tied to the call chain. Ithreads means that there is no
sharing of context between threads, because each thread starts with an
empty control stack. Coroutines would share whatever context they
inherited in common by virtue of being started from the same sub call in
the running program. But each coroutine (or non-coroutine) would not
need to know about the others, if there are any, so there's no need for
"masking."
Also how does all this interact with the lightweight context that Perl
Blocks need?
You've lost me. We were talking about dynamic context here, as opposed
to anything that might pertain solely to a block (which would therefore
make it lexical).
-- Bob
