On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 05:15:07PM -0500, Chris Stith wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2001, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > (1) Sarathy is happy with the ithreads model and would like
> > (2) Me, Alan, and Dan, and I think to some degree Ben, are disagreeing,
> > Let us agree to disagree and move on.
>
> Oh, okay. If the Great Pumpkin[1] says so, so will I do. I just
> hate to see the ideas brought up here tossed aside. Each person
I think you missed the implication of (3)
(3) Artur, being a wise man, is hiding behind closest tree waiting for
the noise to quiet down so that he can continue making the ithreads
model visible from Perl level.
I read that as "patches welcome"
(although not as "patches accepted without due consideration")
As is often re-iterated, talk alone doesn't make perl better. In the end
a patch is needed.
Personally I'm not going to start work on such a thing, as I'm not really
interested, and have other things I need (working h2xs constant()
generator being a new one) and need to do (*****y NaNs) but I'm not stopping
anyone else dedicating tuits to the task if they feel that it is good.
Additionally I'm advocating not discouraging others who feel strongly on the
matter attempting to *do* something about it. [as distinct from others
*saying* things in an attempt to encourage third parties to do something about
it]
Gah. I'm saying things rather than doing things.
Nicholas Clark
