Re: anyone define port types?

On 23 June 2016 at 20:43, Andy Wingo wrote: > On Thu 23 Jun 2016 11:24, Chris Vine writes: >> Secondly, as I understand it in the end you want pre-emptive "green" >> threads for guile, whereas my code equates to co-operative >> multi-tasking, whilst

Re: anyone define port types?

On Thu 23 Jun 2016 11:24, Chris Vine writes: > A few things on that. First, there will always be a use for an event > loop to do event-loopy things, irrespective of whether and how a > coroutine interface is put around it. Sometimes you want to abstract > things

Re: anyone define port types?

Chris Vine : > First, there will always be a use for an event loop to do event-loopy > things, irrespective of whether and how a coroutine interface is put > around it. Sometimes you want to abstract things away, sometimes you > don't. Callback hell is my preferred

Re: anyone define port types?

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:36:48 +0200 Andy Wingo wrote: [snip] > Excellent. Though I think that eventually we will want to bless one > of these concurrency patterns as the default one, we're a long way > away from that, and even if we do bless one I think we will always > want to

Re: anyone define port types?

Little typo: On Thu 23 Jun 2016 09:36, Andy Wingo writes: > The only drawback that I know of with the strategy of simply allowing > users to use Guile's I/O primitives (e.g., `read-line') and assuming > that they'll suspend when they block is that not all of the primitives >

Re: anyone define port types?

On Thu 23 Jun 2016 00:44, Chris Vine writes: > I have stirred myself and installed guile-2.1.3. On looking more at > the suspendable ports code it became obvious and I haven't needed to > adopt anything like ethreads with its "thread" abstraction: instead I > have