> Nope. Internal I/O, at least as the interpreter will see it is async. You
> can build sync from async, it's a big pain to build async from sync.
> Doesn't mean we actually get asynchrony, just that we can.
>
It is trivial to build async from sync, just using thread. Most Unix async
are built this way, using either
user level thread or kernel level thread. Win32 has really async io
implementation, but it does not interact
well with sync io.
> Just because some systems have a really pathetic I/O system doesn't mean
> we
> should penalize those that don't...
>
Implement sync on top of async is also slower. I bet most people will use
sync io, not async one. There
is no need to build async io from sync, the async can be provided using
separate module.
It is not about some systems, it is about most systems. Very few systems
have high performance async io
implementation. And the semantics is not very portable.
I am not sure if interpreter has to choose one over the other. The
interpreter could support both interface,
and use as needed.
Hong
