Quoting Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Similarly, then, I would expect:
>
> sub foo(...) is threaded { ... yield() ... return() }
>
> foo(...args...)
>
> to start &foo as a new thread. C<yield()> would temporarily suspend
> the thread, and C<return()> would end the thread. (Note that you could
> use &_.yield to yield the current Code object, so you can have nested
> yields w/out confusion -- see C<leave>, from A6.)
On the other hand, with this setup, the user may not be aware that calling foo()
starts another thread; the syntax should, IMHO, be more explicit.
--
"In Soviet Russia, jokes laugh at YOU!"
http://www.milkbone.org
