On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 2:41 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > BUT I am sure that more is needed. If task A wants to send info > repeatedly to task B, say in a global name, there has to be a watertight > way for B to know when the data is ready and for A to know when it is > safe to overwrite it. That's what I was talking about.
I guess a question here is: can we build a mutex out of a pyx? And, that's difficult, because a pyx is anonymous, so from a threading point of view it's "single use". Maybe we can work out something where the pyx would also contain a "next pyx" as well as a version number, and a single use gerund (along the lines of a javascript promise) and/or some additional information about stable parts of the symbol table, with a master thread mediating in control of the "unstable parts". But I am not sure we should try to go there. Instead, I think we should break the problem into two pieces -- the general case (where we let the user "roll their own") and the typical case (where we want to let independent code run to completion and then rendezvous. And, frankly, the "pyx" implementation goes a long way towards satisfying the typical case needs. Anyways, I think we have time to think about this. Thanks again, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
