On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:39:02 EDT, Benjamin Sugars wrote: >On Thu, 3 May 2001, Gurusamy Sarathy wrote: >> I don't like making the programmer responsible for avoiding coredumps >> in the guts. > >Neither do I, but at some point it becomes unavoidable. Consider %SIG, for >instance. I hope you're not saying designing things badly is unavoidable because bad design already exists elsewhere in the code. :-) >However, if the implementation of your scheme can burden that >responsibility in this particular case, great. Is this something you >envision for any 5.x version of perl, or is too late for that? My best guess is that it is surely in the realm of the possible for Perl 5. If it doesn't break binary compatibility, maybe even 5.6.x. Sarathy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads David M. Lloyd
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Dan Brian
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Artur Bergman
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Gurusamy Sarathy
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Benjamin Sugars
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Gurusamy Sarathy
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Gurusamy Sarathy
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Benjamin Sugars
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Gurusamy Sarathy
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Benjamin Sugars
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Gurusamy Sarathy
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Dan Sugalski
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Benjamin Sugars
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Dan Sugalski
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Benjamin Sugars
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Dan Sugalski
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Benjamin Sugars
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Benjamin Sugars
