At 7:39 AM +1100 11/18/02, Damian Conway wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:Sometimes the answers to the questions I don't ask are scarier than the answers to the ones I do... ;-P
Creates a disjunction of three classnames, then calls the C<.run> method on each, in parallel, and returns a disjunction of the results
of the calls (which, in the void context is ignored, or maybe optimized away).I was afraid you'd say that.Then you shouldn't have asked the question. ;-)
It does rather complicate things, as the interpreter really isn't set up to be quantum for control flow.
QCF is definitely not required because "Junctions Are Not Quantum". Normal threading is quite enough.
[Snip]
Perl's standard threading behaviour's going to be rather heavyweight, though. I'm not 100% sure we're going to want to go that route, unless we can sharply restrict what the heisenbunnies can see. (Though the presentation on Erlang at LL2 has got me thinking more about efficient multithreading. I don't think we'll be able to use it for perl, though)It would be *vastly* better thought integrate junctive calls with the standard threading behaviour.
Good. We shall have to enforce that, then. Wedge some randomness into the quantum thingies or something.Can we at least guarantee undefined order of operations on things?Yes. Please. I would certainly expect that the order of execution is undefined, since the states of a junction are not themselves ordered.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
