--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:09 AM -0800 3/31/03, Austin Hastings wrote: > >--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> At 8:13 PM +0200 3/31/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > >> >On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 07:45:30AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote: > >> >>I've been thinking about closures, continuations, and > coroutines, > >> and > >> >>one of the interfering points has been threads. > >> >> > >> >>What's the P6 thread model going to be? > >> >> > >> >>As I see it, parrot gives us the opportunity to implement > >> preemptive > >> >>threading at the VM level, even if it's not available via the > OS. > >> > > >> >I think we should consider cooperative threading, implemented > using > >> >continuations. Yielding to another thread would automatically > >> >happen when a thread blocks, or upon explicit request by the > >> >programmer. > >> > > >> >It has many advantages: > >> > >> And one disadvantage: > >> > >> Dan doesn't like it. :) > >> > >> Well, there are actually a lot of disadvantages, but that's the > only > >> important one, so it's probably not worth much thought over > alternate > >> threading schemes for Parrot at least--it's going with an > OS-level > >> preemptive threading model. > >> > >> No, this isn't negotiable. > > > >More information please. > > There isn't any, particularly. We're doing preemptive threads. It > isn't up for negotiation. This is one of the few things where I truly > don't care what people's opinions on the matter are.
Okay, but what does "OS-level" mean? Are you relying on the OS for implementing the threads (a sub-optimal idea, IMO) or something else? =Austin
