On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:10 AM, BGB cr88...@gmail.com wrote:
The new thread should inherit the entire dynamic scope - logically, a local
copy thereof. If there are object references mixed in, then the new thread
now has a copy of these references, but the reference variables initially
point
On 8/4/2011 1:06 AM, David Barbour wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:10 AM, BGB cr88...@gmail.com
mailto:cr88...@gmail.com wrote:
The new thread should inherit the entire dynamic scope -
logically, a local copy thereof. If there are object
references mixed in, then
On 8/4/2011 7:55 AM, David Barbour wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:53 AM, BGB cr88...@gmail.com
mailto:cr88...@gmail.com wrote:
if the parent thread sees its thread-local variable change when a
child-thread assigns to it, this is a problem. it is a natural result
though of the
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:43 PM, BGB cr88...@gmail.com wrote:
it is a straightforward interpretation of scope:
both lexical and dynamic scope cross code boundaries with no effects on
their behavior.
this makes an issue for async { ... }, as the scope is retained across
thread boundaries.
On 8/4/2011 1:35 PM, David Barbour wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:43 PM, BGB cr88...@gmail.com
mailto:cr88...@gmail.com wrote:
it is a straightforward interpretation of scope:
both lexical and dynamic scope cross code boundaries with no
effects on their behavior.
this makes
On 08/03/2011 08:10 PM, Simon Forman wrote:
On the other hand, there's a story (I believe it's in one of the VPRI
documents but I couldn't locate it just now) about children using
their machines to take pictures of a falling object and then analyzing
the pictures and deducing for themselves the
Oh awesome! Thank you both. That's got to be one of the single most
profound uses of computers I've ever run across.
Warm regards,
~Simon
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
Here's the link to the paper
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/rn2005001_learning.pdf
Cheers,
