--- 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?
Yes, we're using the OS-level threading facilities as part of the threading implementation.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
