on 6/24/03 12:30 PM Geoff Howard wrote: > At 01:00 PM 6/24/2003, Gianugo wrote: > >>Christopher Oliver wrote: >> >>>>OK... I spent some more time with the code and did some steps forward. >>>>Now, unfortunately, I'm stuck due to my ignorance: any further step >>>>would be just a wild bet from my part, and it would take me a lot of >>>>time to get acquainted with all the technologies involved (core >>>>javascript and hard-core continuation inners). >>>> >>>>Let's see if we can strike a deal, while we try to find a better >>>>solution with the Rhino guys (something that ATM seems unlikely to me, >>>>given also that they are in RC phase): >>> >>>If we integrate the continuations code with the current rhino cvs, I'm >>>pretty sure Norris will commit it for us. But AFAIK that's not going to >>>be easy. >> >>This is good news. I understand that it's very difficult, but I hope that >>it might be easier than you think, and I hope I can somehow help you in >>that. Anyway, given that you are the only one showing some interest, I'm >>starting to think that I'm just being paranoid... > > > You are not being paranoid. I have been uneasy about the forked rhino code > but have kept quiet because I'm such a junior member of this community, > because I personally did not feel able (time or knowledge wise) to help fix > the situation, and because I am so behind on really understanding flow and > continuations. But I think the longer we go on building on this sand the > more trouble we will be in when the inevitable happens. I for one am > reading every word you two write.
I'm with brother Geoff on this and have expressed my concerns in the past already. I've also being discussing this with Ricardo and we were going to "take a look" on synching back the continuation changes after finishing the FOM (which has a higher priority, IMO). So, no, you are not being paranoid but realistic in removing some of the sand we are building on. -- Stefano.
