I'll second that.
On 3/9/06 16:59, "Joe Huber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:15 PM -0700 9/2/06, Daniel L. Taylor wrote: >> FWIW, I'm not sure how much can be gained by RS trying to introduce >> "automatic" MP in the language vs. the problems that could be created. I >> would rather see a definitive list of what framework classes and methods are >> safe to use in a preemptive thread, assuming potential synchronization >> issues are handled by the programmer. > > I would agree with this but it needs to go a little further. I'd like > to see RS have some officially sanctioned MP threading capability and > then have them work on making the runtime as MP safe as possible. > > Regards, > Joe Huber > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: > <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> > > Search the archives of this list here: > <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html> > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
