Bruce,
You are correct. We we added these new operators as a mechanism of
communication between threads, we also thought that we could make them
generic send/receive commands. When you do:
x@>y
y could be anything that can accept a value, like a thread/coexpression,
file/socket, list. You are just pushing the value x to it. This has been
considered experimental feature since then. However, we have just started
documenting concurrency features in the new Implementation Book. If we
agree that we like the broad semantics of the communication operators then
we will update the Unicon Book as well.
Regards,
Jafar
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bruce & Breeanna Rennie <
bren...@dcsi.net.au> wrote:
> Good morning Clinton and Jafar,
>
> In my investigations of another matter, I have come across some comments
> (and associated code) in the rtl file lmisc.r which appears to indicate
> that the y operand of the above operators can be a file, a list or a
> co-expression as well as the expected task value. Is this correct? If
> so, is the Unicon Book going to be appropriately updated?
>
> regards
>
> Bruce Rennie
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Unicon-group mailing list
> Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Unicon-group mailing list
Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
