Em Dom, 2010-05-16 às 19:34 +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com escreveu:
3) The tough-y: Closed-over variables.
These are tough because it exposes lexicals to sharing, but they are so
natural to use, it is hard to suggest banning their use in concurrent
routines.
This is the point I
Em Dom, 2010-05-16 às 19:34 +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com escreveu:
Interoperability with Perl 5 and
is reference counting should not be a high priority in the decision making
process for defining the Perl 6 concurrency model.
If we drop that requirement then we can simply go to the
On Tue, 18 May 2010 11:39:04 +0100, Daniel Ruoso dan...@ruoso.com wrote:
This is the point I was trying to address, actually. Having *only*
explicitly shared variables makes it very cumbersome to write threaded
code, specially because explicitly shared variables have a lot of
restrictions on
On Tue, 18 May 2010 11:41:08 +0100, Daniel Ruoso dan...@ruoso.com wrote:
Em Dom, 2010-05-16 às 19:34 +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com escreveu:
Interoperability with Perl 5 and
is reference counting should not be a high priority in the decision
making
process for defining the Perl 6
Em Ter, 2010-05-18 às 15:15 +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com escreveu:
1) the interpreter doesn't need to detect the closed over variables, so
even string eval'ed access to such variables would work (which is, imho,
a good thing)
You'd have to explain further for me to understand why it
On Fri, 14 May 2010 20:00:01 +0100, Daniel Ruoso - dan...@ruoso.com
+nntp+browseruk+d52dbf78bb.daniel#ruoso@spamgourmet.com wrote:
Em Sex, 2010-05-14 às 18:13 +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com escreveu:
The point I(we)'ve been trying to make is that once you have a reentrant
