On 2 June 2012 11:40, Stefan Marr <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 02 Jun 2012, at 11:07, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> On 2 June 2012 10:28, Stefan Marr <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Sean:
>>>
>>> On 02 Jun 2012, at 05:07, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
>>>
>>>> During the process, I noticed that the Blue Book specifies that #fork
>>>> returns the block itself (pg. 252), while in Pharo it returns the process
>>>> (see #testFork in the slice). Should our implementation be changed to match
>>>> the Blue Book?
>>>
>>> Why would it be desirable to have the block?
>>
>>> How would you obtain the process object after your change?
>>>
>> by using #newProcess.
>>
>> using the return  value of fork provokes you to write incorrect concurrent 
>> code.
>> for instance, i found once, some code which assumes that forked
>> process not yet started,
>> or not yet terminated, and people trying to do something with process
>> immediately after issuing #fork.
>
> So, just because somebody made a mistake, the whole thing is not worthwhile 
> anymore?
> What is the value of having the direct reference to the block?
> What are you going to do with it?
>
> I would buy an argument that #fork should return a promise (or you can call 
> it future if you like) to the return value of the block.
>
> I don't see how the block itself would be of any use.

agreed.
I didn't said that returning block has any value.. just noted that
returning a process is not much more valuable. Because there is a good
chances that the process which you get is already terminated :)


> I do see however, that the block (i.e., self) was returned in earlier 
> versions just because of convention, and no further thought.
> [Some people claim that the whole idea of Process in Smalltalk was never 
> fully thought out anyway. (And that's not me.)]
>
> Best regards
> Stefan
>
>
> --
> Stefan Marr
> Software Languages Lab
> Vrije Universiteit Brussel
> Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium
> http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr
> Phone: +32 2 629 2974
> Fax:   +32 2 629 3525
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

Reply via email to