Hi,
First, thanks for all your hard work, and for such a wonderful language!
I'm quite new to Rust, but so far I've found it a real pleasure to work
(and think) in.
I did run into one small hitch with the standard library recently. I'm
writing some multithreaded code that lends itself naturally
Is there a particular reason you need a Channel rather than some other
primitive? If not, sync::mpmc_bounded_queue will probably do what
you're looking for.
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Calder Coalson caldercoal...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
First, thanks for all your hard work, and for such a
That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks!
Out of curiosity, why are Rust channels built on top of MPSC queues rather
than MPMC queues?
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Peter Marheine pe...@taricorp.net wrote:
Is there a particular reason you need a Channel rather than some other
On closer inspection, mpmc_bounded_queues aren't quite what I want. I want
consumers to block if the queue is empty rather than returning None.
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Calder Coalson caldercoal...@gmail.com
wrote:
That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks!
Out of curiosity, why
Couldn't you just implement that with a loop and a match statement?
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Calder Coalson caldercoal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On closer inspection, mpmc_bounded_queues aren't quite what I want. I
want consumers to block if the queue is empty rather than returning None.
On
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Evan G eg1...@gmail.com wrote:
Couldn't you just implement that with a loop and a match statement?
Wouldn't that just make the process burn cpu, instead of being able to
allow other threads to work?
___
Rust-dev
On 10/04/2014 01:37 PM, Sean McArthur wrote:
Wouldn't that just make the process burn cpu, instead of being able to
allow other threads to work?
I would think so, yes. From what I can tell, `std::comm` channels do
blocking by using `std::task::deschedule`, along with some internal
housekeeping
Ahh that makes sense. Thanks both of you. I had an inkling that it was more
complicated then I thought, but I wasn't sure.
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Zaven Muradyan za...@skepsi.me wrote:
On 10/04/2014 01:37 PM, Sean McArthur wrote:
Wouldn't that just make the process burn cpu, instead
What Sean said.
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Sean McArthur smcart...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Evan G eg1...@gmail.com wrote:
Couldn't you just implement that with a loop and a match statement?
Wouldn't that just make the process burn cpu, instead of being able
